Telangana High Court
Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs Gugloth Saraiah on 25 April, 2025
1
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
M.A.C.M.A.No.367 of 2021
Between:
Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office at SSS Plaza, MG Road,
Warangal,
(Rep. by authorized person, Sagar Plaza,
IVth Floor, Abids, Koti Road, Hyderabad).
... Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
1. Gugloth Saraiah S/o Chinna Dhasu,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.4-19/A, Chandruthanda, Karlapalle Post,
Govindraopet Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District,
Presently residing at Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
... Respondent/Petitioner
2. K. Venkat Reddy S/o Buchi Reddy,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner cum driver of
The Crime Vehicle, R/o Pasra Village,
Govindraopet Mandal,
Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.
... Respondent/Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 25.04.2025
Submitted for approval.
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
1 Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No
2 Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
2
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
+ MACMA. No.367 of 2021
% Dated 25.04.2025
Between:
# Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Branch Office at SSS Plaza, MG Road,
Warangal,
(Rep. by authorized person, Sagar Plaza,
IVth Floor, Abids, Koti Road, Hyderabad).
1. ... Appellant/Respondent No.2
And
1. Gugloth Saraiah S/o Chinna Dhasu,
Age: 26 years, Occ: Agriculture,
R/o H.No.4-19/A, Chandruthanda, Karlapalle Post,
Govindraopet Mandal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District,
Presently residing at Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District.
... Respondent/Petitioner
2. K. Venkat Reddy S/o Buchi Reddy,
Age: Major, Occ: Owner cum driver of
The Crime Vehicle, R/o Pasra Village,
Govindraopet Mandal,
Jayashankar Bhupalpally District.
... Respondent/Respondent
! Counsel for the Appellant: Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar
^ Counsel for the Respondents: -Nil-
<Gist:
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
(2011) 12 SCC 236
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
3
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NO.367 OF 2021
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by
the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2018
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII
Additional District Judge, (FTC)., Warangal (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 petitioner before the Tribunal was that on
14.12.2017 at about 19:30 hours, the deceased was going along
with his relative by riding his Hero Honda Shine Motor Cycle
bearing No.TS-03-JTR-8931 coming towards Pasra and when they
were about to reach the bus stop, he saw an unknown vehicle
coming from Pasra, and so he had taken his vehicle to a side to
stop it, but a Lorry bearing No.Ap-24-U-9931 was parked there
negligently without any indicator and without taking any
precautions, as such, he hit the parked lorry and fell down on the
road along with his relative, as a result he sustained grevious head
injury and was immediately shifted to Guardian Hospital,
Warangal and from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital,
where he was treated as an in patient and was discharged on
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
27.12.2017, but again he was readmitted on 28.12.2017 and was
discharged on 02.01.2018, due to the said injuries, he became
permanently disabled. Thus, he claimed a compensation of
Rs.25,70,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of
the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and the
age, avocation and income of the petitioner. They further
contended that the petitioner was not wearing helmet at the time of
the accident and that the accident occurred due to his own
negligence and that the respondent No.2 is not at all liable to pay
any compensation to the petitioner.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor
vehicle accident on account of rash and negligent
driving of Lorry bearing No.AP-24U-9931 driven by
its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation.
If so, to what amount and from whom?
3. To what relief ?
7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2
and Exs.A1 to A6 and X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 and B2 were
marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.37,69,200/-. Aggrieved by the said order and
decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.
9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant. No representation on behalf of the respondents.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the
Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was
negligent and thus went and hit against the parked lorry and that
ignoring the said fact, the Tribunal has awarded huge
compensation to the petitioner. He further argued that in the
absence of any proof, the Tribunal has taken the income of the
petitioner as Rs.6,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has
further awarded huge amounts under various heads and granted
exorbitant compensation to the petitioner. He further argued that
there is a delay of (7) days in lodging the FIR and that the Tribunal
failed to consider that it is only due to the negligence of the
petitioner that the accident occurred and that there is no
negligence of the parked lorry and therefore, he prayed to
exonerate the insurer from liability.
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
12. Based on the above submission of learned counsel for the
appellant, this Court frames the following points for determination:
1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is
just and reasonable?
2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need
any interference?
4. To what relief?
13. Point No.1:
a) A perusal of FIR under Ex.A1and charge sheet under EX.A3
reveals that the charge sheet is filed against the lorry driver and
the contents of the charge sheet reveal that the lorry was left on
the road without any indicators, safety measures and in a
negligent manner. It is further mentioned that the injured
petitioner and his wife were going on the motor bike towards Pasra,
meanwhile, when they reached near Pasra Village at about 19:45
hours, one unknown vehicle was coming in the opposite direction
and that due to the shining of the lights of the opposite vehicle, the
injured petitioner took aside his vehicle and thus, dashed to the
parked lorry bearing No.AP-24U-9931. Thus, it is evident from the
record that since the lorry was parked negligently without any
indicators and the injured petitioner could not observe the same
and went and hit against the parked lorry, as he diverted his
vehicle, when he saw an unknown vehicle coming in the opposite
direction towards him. Therefore, it is held that the accident
occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the lorry by its
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
driver and it is held that there is no negligence of the petitioner in
the occurrence of the accident.
Point No.1 is answered accordingly.
14. Point No.2:-
b) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too exorbitant and is
more than the claim of the petitioners.
c) A perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that the petitioner sustained two
grievous injuries i.e., one brain injury and another is the fracture
to the mandible. MLC issued by the Yashoda Hospital also reveals
the said injuries, along with two more injuries, i.e., laceration of
tongue and abrasion on right foot.
d) The discharge summary under Ex.A5 discloses that he was
admitted on 15.12.2017 and discharged on 27.12.2017, while
surgery was conducted on 19.12.2017. It discloses about the
details of the treatment given to the petitioner for his injuries and
at the time of discharge, he was advised with medication and also
for a review after two weeks. Another discharge summary issued
by Yashoda Hospital under Ex.A5 reveals that he was again
admitted on 28.12.2017 and discharged on 02.01.2018 and the
diagnosis in the said discharge summary reveals that the petitioner
suffered with severe traumatic brain injury, left temporal
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
contusion, Post ORIF +IMF of facial bones and tracheostomy
status.
e) It is elicited that the patient underwent surgery earlier, but
he was found to have quadriparesis, which was thoroughly
evaluated, patient was discharged, but again readmitted. A bunch
of X-rays and other diagnostic receipts and medical bills are filed
by the petitioner. In view of the injuries sustained by him and the
treatment underwent by him. This Court opines that the
compensation that can be awarded in the present case is
Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
f) He filed medical bills to an extent of Rs.4,78,260/- and
Rs.85,696/- towards the inpatient final bills of Yashoda Hospital
on two instances, apart from which he also underwent treatment in
Guardian Multi Speciality Hospital, and also has filed several
medical bills. In addition to the medical expenses, the petitioner
might have incurred some amount of expenditure towards extra
nourishment, transportation and other incidental expenses.
Considering the entire evidence on record and all the additional
elements put together the amount awarded towards medical
expenses and treatment as Rs.15,00,000/- by the Tribunal
appears to be just and reasonable.
g) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner was an
agriculturist and that he used to earn Rs.6,000/- per month prior
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
to the accident and that he suffered huge loss of earnings due to
the accident. No proof is filed in this regard. 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. But in the present case, the accident
occurred in the year 2017 and the injured-petitioner stated to have
been an agriculturist, thus, his income could not be less than
Rs.6,000/-. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of
the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly
income of the deceased is assessed as Rs.6,000/- per month which
is just and reasonable.
h) Considering the period of hospitalization in two spells, and
the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner, it is opined
that he must have taken atleast six months to recover from the
injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is assessed as Rs.6,000 x 6 =
36,000/- .
i) The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate, but the
Tribunal has mentioned in its order that it has referred the
petitioner to Government Hospital and obtained a report of his
health. The tribunal has further held that considering the medical
reports of the MGM Hospital, it has assessed the functional
(2011) 12 SCC 236
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
disability of the petitioner as 80%. The Tribunal has discussed
about the medical report stated to have been obtained from the
MGM Hospital, but it does not form a part of the record. The said
report is neither marked nor placed in the file. Thus, nothing is
there on record to show the disability sustained by the petitioner
so as to assess any loss of future prospects or loss of future
earnings. In the absence of any evidence, it is not proper to award
compensation towards loss of future earnings. Thus, an amount of
Rs.9,79,200/- awarded by the Tribunal towards continuing
permanent disability is found to be without any basis. It is also
noticed that the compensation that is awarded under the head of
attendant charges is also multiplied with the multiplier specified
for the age of the petitioner i.e., the attendant charges are assessed
at Rs.5,000/- per month and per annum it is taken as Rs.60,000/-
and the same is multiplied with '17' and arrived at a compensation
of Rs.10,20,000/-, which is also not proper as per the prevailing
law.
j) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation
amounts:
SI.N Name of the heads Awarded by this Court
o. Rs.
1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, 2,00,000/-
shock, Pain and suffering
2. Compensation under the heads 15,00,000/-
hospital, medical transport, extra
nourishment and other incidental
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
expenses
2. Compensation for loss of earnings (past 36,000/-
six months) (6,000x6)
Total 17,36,000/-
Hence, it is held that the compensation granted by the
Tribunal is excessive.
Point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.3:-
It is found that in view of the findings arrived at Point No.1
and 2, the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified,
reducing the quantum of compensation. This Court has arrived at
a compensation of Rs.17,36,000/-, while the Tribunal has granted
an amount of Rs.37,69,200/-.
Point No.3 is answered accordingly.
16. Point No.4:-
In the result, the MACMA filed by the Insurance Company is
allowed, reducing the quantum of compensation i.e., awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.37,69,200/- to Rs.17,36,000/- setting aside
the Order and Decree dated 21.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2018
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII
Additional District Judge, (FTC)., Warangal and the compensation
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay
if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to
ETD,J
MACMA No.367_2021
deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On
such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount
without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date: 25.04.2025
ds
