Telangana High Court

The Ifficotokio Ltd General Insurance ... vs Putta Laxmi on 30 April, 2025

                                  1


      HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.341 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015

passed by the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV

Additional District and Sessions Judge, (II FTC), Nalgonda (for

short "the trial Court").

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 is that on

08.02.2014 at about 3:00 p.m., the petitioner was going along

with her husband on a Splendor motor cycle bearing No.Ap-24-AB-

0283 from Nalgonda to Narketpally and while on the way, at

around 3:45 p.m., when they reached near Renuka Yellamma

Temple near Madhava Yadavally Village, a tractor driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the

motor bike of the petitioner parallelly, due to which the injured fell

down from the motor bike and the tractor wheel ran over her legs,

as a result of which she sustained fracture injuries. Immediately

she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, where she took

first aid and then she was referred to Kamineni Hospital, L.B

Nagar, where she underwent inpatient treatment and incurred ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

huge expenditure. Thus, she sought a compensation of

Rs.50,00,000/-.

4)     The respondent No.1 was set ex-parte.


5)     The respondent No.2-Insurance Company has filed counter

denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence

of the accident, the age, avocation and income of the injured-

petitioner. Further, they contended that the accident occurred due

to the gross negligence on part of the husband of the petitioner

who was riding the motor bike and that there was no negligence of

the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886. They

further contended that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid

driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not

liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner-injured sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor bearing No.AP-24_UB-RT- 6886?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 10

and got marked Exs.C1 to C17. On behalf of the respondents RW1

and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4.

ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a

compensation of Rs.21,02,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum.

Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is

preferred by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard the submission of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel

for the appellant and N. Mukund Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has passed an erroneous judgment which is beyond the

weight of evidence. He further argued that there was a delay of two

days in filing the complaint after the accident and that the said

delay was not explained properly. He further argued that the

petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and insurer of the

motor bike and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the

evidence adduced by the Insurance Company. It is specifically

contended by the appellant counsel that their policy was issued

while the tractor was under temporary registration and that the

tractor did not possess valid and effective insurance policy as on

the date of the accident. He therefore, prayed to absolve the

insurance company from its liability. He further contended that the

Tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various heads towards ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

compensation, which is not proper. He therefore prayed to allow

their appeal by setting aside the order and decree of the Tribunal.

11. The respondent counsel on the other hand has submitted

that the income of the petitioner is proved by Ex.C13 and C14 and

that the trial Court has rightly granted the compensation by

considering the evidence on record.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886 had a valid and subsisting policy as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner?

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

4. To what relief?

13. POINT NO.1:

a) The contention of the appellant counsel is that the policy was

not valid as on the date of the accident. In support of their case,

they got examined RW1 and 2. RW1 has admitted that the

petitioner is a third party to the Insurance Policy and the reason

for delay is mentioned in the charge sheet that on account of the

treatment of the injured, the delay has occurred. He also admitted

that as per the charge sheet, the driver of the tractor was

responsible for the accident.

ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

b) A perusal of Ex.B1 and B2 reveals that Ex.B1/Policy is

issued to the tractor bearing No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886. The year of

manufacturing is shown as 2013, the Chassis Number is

ZJBG01284GD, Engine Number is ZJBG01284 and the policy is

valid from 20.12.2013 to 19.12.2014.

c) A perusal of Ex.B2 reveals the temporary registration mark

of the vehicle as AP-24UB-TR6886 and the Engine Number

mentioned is ZJBG01284, Chassis Number mentioned is

ZJBG01284GD, which are the same as mentioned in Ex.B1. Thus,

it is safely held that the policy issued covers the risk of the crime

vehicle i.e., the Tractor bearing temporary registration No.AP-

24UB-TR6886. Therefore, it is held that the crime vehicle that is

the tractor had valid insurance policy as on the date of the

accident and the insurance company is liable to pay the

compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

d) The another contention of the appellant counsel is that the

Tribunal has granted huge amount under various heads and

granted exorbitant amount of compensation to the petitioner. The

case of the petitioner is that she underwent major operations as

she suffered fracture injuries. The Medico-Legal Certificate issued

under Ex.C3 reveals that the petitioner sustained five injuries 1) ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

Abrasion over the left side of fore head 2) Abrasion over the left

cheek 3) Crush injury to left hand exposing underlying muscles;

Tenderness; and bones, 4) Crush injury over the left inguinal

region exposing subcutaneous feet and 5) Swelling, deformity and

tenderness over the left thigh which are grievous in nature. The

Discharge Summary under Ex.C4 reveals the nature of treatment

underwent by the petitioner for the fracture injuries sustained by

her. The patient was treated with Wound Debridement + External

Fixator Pelvis +Ender's nailing Left femur + WD and POP slab B/E

for left hand under general anesthesia on 9.2.14 (Orthopedic

procedure) + Wound debridement + Split skin graft taken for

storage (General Surgery & Plastic surgeon) on 09.02.2014. Post

operatively shifted to SICU. At the time of discharge she was

advised with medication and also physiotherapy and she was

advised to stand with walker support, only partial weight bearing

over left lower limb till further advise. The period of treatment is

also disclosed from Ex.C4, that she was admitted on 08.02.2014

and discharged on 19.03.2014. Thus, it discloses that she

underwent treatment for about 1 ½ months as an inpatient in

Kamineni Hospitals.

e) Another Discharge Summary is at Ex.C5 which discloses

that the petitioner was again admitted on 10.09.2014 and was

discharged on 11.09.2014. During her stay at the hospital, she was ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

treated with Regular colomostomy care and antiseptic dressing and

other supportive medicine. The petitioner was advised with

medication at the time of discharge.

f) Ex.C6 is another Discharge Summary revealing that the

petitioner got admitted on 24.10.2014 and discharged on

30.10.2014, wherein she was treated with "Post Operative

Findings: 6-7% Post Raw Area Left Thigh and Posterior, Lateral and

Medial Aspects with Granulation. Under SA, Granulation (un

healthy) scrapped. Haemostasis secured, SSG harvested from right

thigh, Raw area resurfaced with SSG Dressing applied."

g) PW3/Dr. Roshan Jaiswal, PW4/Dr. T. Venkateshwarlu,

PW5/Dr. Y. Srinivas and PW6/Dr. L. Vikram are the doctors

working at Kamineni Hospital who deposed that they have treated

the petitioner.

h) Ex.C7 is the Disability Certificate issued by the District

Medical Board which discloses that the petitioner sustained 60%

disability.

i) PW8 is the Civil Surgeon at Government Headquarters

Hospital, Nalgonda. He is the member of District Medical Board

who has issued Ex.C7. His evidence reveals that the petitioner was

suffering with 60% disability due to sequel of injury to left lower ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

limb with ankle loss, left knee joint and injury to right lower limb

with foot drop and sequel of injury to left hand with loss of grip.

j) Ex.C8 is the Bunch of Medical Bills to an extent of

Rs.15,00,000/-. Another Bill under Ex.B9 is filed to an extent of

Rs.68,000/- for physiotherapy. Thus, it reveals that the petitioner

has sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized thrice as

inpatient when the accident occurred in February 2014, she

underwent treatment till October 2014 in different spells which

involves lot of pain and suffering. The Tribunal has considered the

said aspects and has awarded the compensation.

k) PW4 is the plastic surgeon, he too has spoken with regard to

the treatment that was given to the petitioner. He deposed with

regard to the plastic surgery to her left thigh and skin grafting

done on 09.02.2014 and with regard to issuance of Ex.C5, C6 and

C8 by their hospital.

l) The evidence of PW5 who is a General Surgeon at Kamineni

Hospital also revealed the details of the surgeries that were

performed on the petitioner and that he was a part of the team of

doctors consisting of Orthopedic Surgeon, Plastic Surgeon and

Gynecologist along with him and that all of them together have

treated the petitioner performing the surgeries to cure the injuries ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

sustained by the petitioner. He stated that their hospital has

issued Ex.C17.

m) PW6/Dr. L. Vikram Kumar who is the RMO in Kamineni

Hospitals, he deposed that Ex.C3-Medico-Legal Certificate is issued

by their hospital, Ex.C4 to C6 are the Discharge Summaries issued

by their hospital and C8 is the Bunch of Medical Bills and

prescriptions.

n) Thus, the evidence of PW3 to PW6 reveals the nature of

treatment that was undergone by the petitioner at Kamineni

Hospital as an inpatient. It also reveals that the injuries were

grievous in nature for which, the doctors had to perform series of

surgeries, including plastic surgery.

o) PW7 is the Gynecologist of Sai Balaji Hospital and her

evidence reveals that the petitioner was coming to their hospital for

regular dressing for a period of one year and that she was admitted

as inpatient on 07.05.2017 due to the complaint of IVth Degree

Uterine Prologs and that she underwent surgery for Vaginal

prestructimay with pelvic flora repair and she was discharged on

11.05.2017. The said surgery was done to cure her injuries

sustained in the accident. Ex.C10 is the Discharge Summary and

lab reports issued by their hospital. Ex.C9 is the bill worth

Rs.50,000/- issued by their hospital.

ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

p) PW9 is examined as an eye witness to the accident. His

evidence reveals that while he was going on his motor bike on

08.02.2014, when he reached Madhava Yadavally Village, near

Renuka Yellamma Temple, the injured-petitioner was going along

with her husband towards Narketpally, while a Tractor bearing

No.AP-24-UB-TR-6886 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed, dashed to the motor bike from behind,

due to which the petitioner and her husband fell down and

sustained injuries. Nothing material was elicited during his cross

examination to discredit his evidence.

q) PW10-G. Venkat Ram Reddy, his evidence reveals that the

petitioner's husband has taken his flat on rent, since his wife

Laxmi sustained severe injuries and fractures and was under

regular medical treatment. Thus, they resided in his flat for a rent

of Rs.10,000/- and Ex.C12 is the Rental Agreement. In his cross

examination, it is elicited that PW10 has not produced any

document before the Tribunal to show that he is the owner of Flat

No.403/Vinayaka Heavens, Telephone Colony, Kothapet,

mentioned under Ex.C12. Thus, the same is not taken into

consideration.

r) PW2/S. Navitha who is a physiotherapist and her evidence

reveals that the petitioner required physiotherapy during the phase

of recovery and that she used to take sessions twice daily and used ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

to charge an amount of Rs.1,500/- per day and that she received

Rs.13,05,000/- from the patient. Ex.C11 is the Bunch of

physiotherapy bills (15) in number for a total amount of

Rs.13,05,000/-. In her cross examination it is elicited that Ex.C11

is not in the form of bill, but it is issued on her Letter Pad.

However, the treatment of physiotherapy is suggested in the

discharge summaries issued by the Kamineni Hospital. Therefore,

the petitioner having sustained grievous injuries and having

undergone so many surgeries in the hospital must have required

physiotherapy for a considerable period of time as revealed from

the nature of treatment underwent by her. Thus, Ex.C11 are also

taken into consideration.

s) The Tribunal has considered all the components including

pain and suffering, medical expenses. For pain and suffering the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,00,000/- which appears to be just and

reasonable. Towards medical expenses the petitioner has filed bills

to an extent of Rs.16,55,000/-, but since the claimants has

claimed only Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal has restricted the same

to Rs.15,00,000/- and has awarded the said amount. Since, the

petitioner underwent treatment for about eight months as in

patient and further was advised with physiotherapy, she could

have required another four months to recover. Thus, for over a

period of one year or so, she must have required extra ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

nourishment and the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra

nourishment awarded by the Tribunal is also justified.

t) The record reveals that the petitioner was bed ridden for

about a period of eight months and thus, attendant charges of

Rs.50,000/- is held to be proper. With regard to permanent

disability, the evidence of PW10 reveals that the petitioner

sustained 60% disability as revealed from Ex.C7.

u) The Tribunal has considered the gravity of injuries sustained

by the petitioner and that the petitioner would have difficulty in

performing her household duties, as she sustained loss of ankle,

right limb. Thus, the Tribunal has assessed 60% to be the

functional disability and loss of earnings. Since, she is housewife,

her notional income is taken as Rs.3,000/- on a reasonable

hypothesis. The compensation for continued permanent disability

is assessed as Rs.3,02,400/- (36,000 x 60/100) i.e., annual income

x 60% x multiplier). The record reveals that she was under pain

and suffering for a long period and was also admitted thrice in the

hospitals for so many months in different spells. Therefore, the

Tribunal has on the whole awarded loss of earnings to the extent of

Rs.50,000/- which appears to be justified. Therefore, it is opined

that the award passed the Tribunal is just and reasonable and

hence, the same is up held.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.341_2021

14. Point No.2:

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, there is no need

to interfere with the Order and Decree of the Tribunal and the

same is upheld.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order

and Decree dated 22.01.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.288 of 2015 passed by

the Chariman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional

District and Sessions Judge, (II FTC), Nalgonda. No costs.