Telangana High Court

Shriram General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Gaddam Poshamma , Posani on 9 April, 2025

                                 1



      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.247 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 17.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.208 of 2016

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII

Additional Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short

"the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

17.02.2016 at 1:30 a.m., the petitioner while breaking coconut at

Godavari river bridge at Godavarikani, one lorry bearing No.AP-

20X-5752 came in wrong side at a high speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed her, due to which she sustained

severe fracture injuries and she was taken to a local hospital for

treatment, from there she was shifted to Osmania General Hospital

and while undergoing treatment, her left leg has been amputated

above the knee and that her right ankle also got fractured her right

toe was also amputated. Thus, she claimed a compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

5. The Respondent No.3 filed counter denying the age, income

and avocation of the injured-petitioner and also the manner in

which the accident has occurred. They further contended that the

claim is highly excessive and that the petitioner herself was

negligent while crossing the road and contributed to the accident.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal

has framed the following issues for trial:

1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-20X-5752?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Ex.A1 to A7. The respondents got marked Ex.B1,

while no oral evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the trial Court has awarded

a compensation of Rs.18,84,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award,

the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned

counsel for the appellant. No representation on behalf of the

respondents.

ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

10. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has erroneously granted huge amount towards

compensation and that the Tribunal ought not to have relied upon

the Doctor evidence in the absence of any other documents placed

in that regard. The counsel has further argued that the petitioner

failed to produce any medical bills to prove the medical expenses.

Further the Tribunal failed to consider the contributory negligence

of the petitioner and he therefore, prayed to reduce the

compensation.

11. The respondent counsel has failed to appear before this

Court.

12. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether there was any contributory negligence on part of the injured-petitioner in the occurrence of the accident?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is not just and proper?

3. Whether the order and decree of the trial Court need any interference?

4. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1 :-

a) The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has

granted excess compensation. The case of the petitioner is that she

sustained injuries as she was hit by one lorry bearing No.AP-20X-

5752 while she was breaking coconut on the road side.

ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

b) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1 and charge sheet under Ex.A2

reveal that the charge sheet is filed against the lorry driver, after

thorough investigation by the Police, it reveals the manner in

which the accident has occurred. It is mentioned in the charge

sheet that the petitioner along with several other persons went to

Sammakka-Saarakka Jathara and while returning, they stopped

their bus on the edge of Godavari river Bridge to have a Darshan of

Godavari and thus, they got down from the bus and while crossing

the road, to break the coconut, in the mean time the driver of the

lorry has driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner has

dashed the petitioner, due to which she fell down and sustained

grievous injuries to her left leg. Therefore, based on the Ex.A1 and

A2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the lorry driver and that there is no

contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

c) The grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal has

granted excess compensation. The Injury Certificate under Ex.A5 is

issued by CMO-Osmania General Hospital stating that the

petitioners sustained grievous injury and was treated in their

Orthopedic Department. The Discharge Summary is filed under

Ex.A6 which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

27.02.2016 and was discharged on 13.04.2016, during the said

period, she was operated on 28.02.2016. It is further revealed that

she was treated under Aarogya Mithra Scheme, as the petitioner

was a White Ration Card Holder. The nature of treatment reveals

that her left lower limb was amputated. Due to the amputation, the

petitioner suffered disability which is revealed under Ex.A7, which

is issued by the District Medical Board and it shows that the

percentage of disability is 90%, due to posttraumatic amputation of

the left lower limb. The case sheet of the petitioner/Ex.A5 shows

the daily treatment of the petitioner, wherein the doctors would

endorse the medication given to the petitioner during her stay at

the hospital as inpatient. It further discloses that she underwent

treatment for about 1½ month.

d) PW2/Dr. A. Aravind is a Civil Assistant Surgeon in Area

Hospital, Mancherial, he deposed with regard to the Disability

Certificate issued under Ex.A7. He is one of the members of the

District Medical Board which issued under Ex.A7. Thus, the

disability under Ex.A7 is proved.

e) PW3/Dr. Mohd. Rafi is a CMO at Osmania General Hospital.

In his evidence, the details of the treatment given to the petitioner

is elicited and he further deposed that Ex.A5, A6 are issued by ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

their hospital and that she was given treatment at free of cost

under Aarogya Mithra Scheme.

f) Thus, it is elicited through the evidence on record that the

petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident, due to which

her left limb was amputated below knee. Thus, it is clear that the

petitioner underwent a lot of pain and suffering for a period of

about 1½ months in the hospital and it might have taken another

six months for her to recover from the said impact. Therefore under

the heads of pain and suffering an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is

granted towards compensation.

g) The petitioner is stated to be a vegetable vendor and that she

used to earn around Rs.9,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. The

Tribunal has taken her monthly income to be Rs.8,000/-. The

contention of the appellant counsel is that, it is on a too higher

side. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held

that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a

labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income.

In the said case, the accident occurred in 2004, while in the

present case, the accident occurred in the year 2016 and the

deceased is stated to be a vegetable vendor. Therefore, the income

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

as taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. As per the medical

records, her age is revealed as '46' years.

h) Keeping in view, the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar and Another 2, compensation has to be granted towards

loss of future earnings. Since the petitioner lost her left limb, and

without any support, she cannot do any work even if she is treated

with artificial leg, after which at the age of '46' years she would not

be able to take up her old avocation as vegetable vendor in an

effective manner. Hence, the loss of earnings is assessed to be 50%

in the present case. The Tribunal has followed the principles laid

down in Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar and also National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others 3. Thus, it has

added 25% of future prospects. In view of the law laid down by the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation4

the multiplier that has to be applied for her age is "13". Therefore,

the loss of future earnings would be the annual earning x 50% x

multiplier = 1,20,000 x 13 x 50/100 = 7,80,000/-.

i) In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and her

sufferance and also the fact that she may not be able to lead her

normal life in future due to the amputation of left leg and that she

2011 (1) SCC 343

AIR 2017 SCC 5157

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.247_2021

is a poor lady, it is opined that the Tribunal has taken into

consideration all the other aspects such transportation, attendant

services, extra-nourishment etc., in arriving at a just compensation

of Rs.9,75,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the Order of the

Tribunal does not need any interference. Hence, the same is

upheld. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is opined to be

just and reasonable and does not need any interference.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:-

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1 and 2, the order

and decree of the Tribunal does not need any interference.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.4:

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 17.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.208 of 2016 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional

Chief Judge City Civil Court, Secunderabad. No costs.