Telangana High Court

Ch.Ratna Raju vs Kamble Jagadishwar Rao And Another on 25 April, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.349 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award

and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014, dated 29.01.2020, wherein claimant/

petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor

vehicle accident that took place on 22.06.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed

M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988

seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle

accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by

the Tata Ace Vehicle. It is contended that on 22.06.2014, the petitioner

was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BM-3200 and when

they reached near Prashanth Nagar Bus Stop, the driver of Tata Ace

Vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778 came in a rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle, as a

result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture

and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to

Prime Hospital, Kukatpally. The Police registered a case in Crime

No.428 of 2014 against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was

that due to accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of left little finger

metacarpal, crush injury to left hand palm, polytrauma with facial

injury to left upper limb, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body

and petitioner was completely bed ridden and lost his job and also

incurred huge expenditure and claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-

under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex-

parte. The respondent No.2 - Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., filed a

counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition,

including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation

and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the

offending Tata Ace Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the

time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed

is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads

as under:

i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778, causing injuries to the petitioner?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into

the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of

Rs.2,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation

amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on

the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the

petitioner, that the petitioner was working as Pastor in a Church and

used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and due to accident and injuries

sustained by him, the petitioner lost his job and was unable to do day to

day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also

contended that claimants has lost his future prospect, but the learned

Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has

awarded an amount of Rs.2,04,000/-, which is meager and not awarded

just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute

with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability

on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries:

i) Fracture of left little finger metacarpal.

ii) Crush injury to left hand palm.

iii) Poly trauma with facial.

iv) Injury to left upper lim.

v) Head injury.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that

petitioner also got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW2 and it

is evident from the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was treated for

the injury of his left little finger and other injures, PW2 also arrived the

disability of the petitioner approximately 10% and contended that due

to said disability there shall be restricted movements on the left hand,

weak grips in the hands and the petitioner will face difficulty in driving

the vehicles and further contended that petitioner was admitted into the

Prime Hospital on 22.06.2014 and discharged on 25.06.2014. Ex.A4 is

discharge summary issued by the hospital. Ex.A3 is Medico legal record

which shows that the petitioner received one grievous injury and one

simple injury of abrasion on face. Ex.A6 revels that the hospital charged

bill of Rs.73,974/- for Hospitalization.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss of

earning, but the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-

and also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain

and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to

clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental

agony, and awarded Rs.2,04,000/- in total, which is meagre and prays

this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal.

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

12. Heard Sri K.Harimohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on

record.

13. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award

passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding

liability of the respondent No.1 and accident. The only point that arose

before this Court in this appeal is that:

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1

14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on

22.06.2014. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Paster in the

Church and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, however no

documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner

was working as Pastor in the Church and drawing a Salary of

Rs.10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has presumed that petitioner might

have taken rest for two months due to said accident and estimated

Rs.20,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month towards 'loss of

earnings', The Hon'ble Suprme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of

Bihar 1, where it is stated that in the absence of such documentary

proof with regard to income of the petitioner and where there is no proof

of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and

assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence the

1 2001(8) SCC 197

compensation is granted by the Learned Tribunal in so far as assessing

the income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which appear to

be fair and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. As per

Ex.A3 the petitioner received one simple and one grievous injury. Ex.A5

is a disability certificate issued by PW2 stating that of 10% disability of

left hand, however there is no mention in the Ex.A5 as to the disability

whether it is of permanent in nature or partial, hence this Court cannot

take into account the Ex.A5 for assessing the compensation towards

future prospects. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards

transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards simple injury and

Rs.10,000/- towards the grievous injury, which this Court feel the said

amount granted by the learned Tribunal needs no interference, however,

with regard to pain and sufferance, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum

of Rs.20,000/- which appears to be meager and this Court enhances the

said amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. The learned Tribunal has

not awarded any amount under the head of 'damages to clothing and

articles', admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the

accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this

Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation

under the head of 'damage to clothing and articles'. As per Ex.A6, the

petitioner spent Rs.73,974/- towards hospital bill and Ex.A5, estimation

letter towards future surgery for reducing the bulk on the left hand, and

the Tribunal granted Rs.73,974/- towards Medical expenses and

Rs.50,000/- towards surgery, which is not disputed by both the

respondent No.2, hence no interference required.

15. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited

decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table below for easy reference.


                                 Amount arrived at by   Amount arrived at by
                  Head              the Tribunal            this Court

         Medical Expenses            Rs.73,974/-            Rs.73,974/-

       Loss of earning for two       Rs.20,000/-            Rs.20,000/-
               months
       Transportation Charges        Rs.10,000/-            Rs.10,000/-

         One Simple Injury           Rs.5,000/-             Rs.5,000/-

         One Grievous Injury         Rs.10,000/-            Rs.10,000/-

         Pain and Suffering          Rs.20,000/-             35,000/-

         Extra Nourishment           Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-

              Surgery                Rs.50,000/-            Rs.50,000/-

        Damages to cloths &                 -               Rs.2,000/-
             articles
                Total              Rs.2,03,974/-
                                   Rounded to Rs.          Rs.2,20,974/-
                                     2,04,000/-

16. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest

at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, and this

Court is granting 9% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from

the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.2,03,974/- to Rs.2,20,974/- (Rupees Two

Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Nine Hundred and Seventy Four

Rupees only) with the interest of 9% on the enhanced amount of

compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs

and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if

any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this