Telangana High Court
Anthangari Srisailam vs Dasari Balaiah on 7 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.27 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and
Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the
entire record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the
award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.48 of
2015, dated 14.11.2022, wherein an amount of Rs.54,095/- was awarded in
a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of
injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.
3. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 06.09.2014 at about
19:30 hours, when he was proceeding as an inmate in auto bearing
No.AP 23 TA 1934 from Sangareddy to Mudimanikyam village along with
others. When the auto reached Kulabgoor village limits, the driver of one
auto trolley bearing No.AP 23 8569, which was proceeding in opposite
direction in rash and negligent manner with high speed lost control and
dashed the auto in wrong side. This caused the appellant and other inmates
to fall outside the auto resulting in fracture injuries. On account of the
RY,J
MACMA_27_2023
losses and expenses incurred due to injuries sustained in the accident, the
appellant filed claim petition against respondent No.1-owner and
respondent No.2-insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 23 8569 seeking
compensation from them jointly and severally.
4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1
to A-8. Respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B-1 i.e., true copy of the
insurance policy. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.54,095/- along with interest at 7.5% per
annum leading to filing of the present appeal.
5. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the appellant has lost his
avocation due to multiple fracture injuries and the disability certificate is
not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Further, it is pleaded that the
appellant was an agriculturist-cum-labourer and he was earning an amount
of Rs.7,000/- per month. The fracture injuries are preventing the appellant
from doing agriculture which involves hard manual labour work and
therefore, he is suffering with permanent disability which also results in
loss of earning due to 100% functional disability, as such enhancement of
compensation is sought.
RY,J
MACMA_27_2023
6. In that context, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the
judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Routhu Likitha v. L.
Srinivas Rao 1, wherein it is held as follows:
"8. c)...The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A6-discharge summary would
show that the claimant was treated in the Vaishnavi Hospital of P.W.2,
That P.W.2 is a qualified doctor and that he treated the claimant are not
disputed by the respondents, though it was suggested that he is not
competent to issue disability certificate. When a doctor is qualified and
treated the patient, he will be competent to speak about the disability of
the patient. He stands in the position of an expert and his evidence will
be relevant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court
may accept or reject his opinionative evidence having regard to other
facts and circumstances connecting to the case, but his evidence cannot
be rejected on the sole ground that he is a private doctor and the
disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board. In the
instant case, the Tribunal rejected Ex.A-8-disability certificate issued
by P.W.2 on the sole ground that it was not issued by the Medical
Board and that P.W.2 is a private doctor. That approach is not correct.
Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to Ex.A-8 has to be
objectively assessed before coming to a conclusion regarding disability
of the claimant."
7. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the
Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the appellant in right
perspective and awarded compensation and therefore, there are no grounds
to interfere with in the impugned award.
8. The evidence of P.W.2 i.e., Dr. K. Raju Goud is that the appellant
was admitted on 07.09.2014 with a history of road traffic accident with
2015 4 ALD 117
RY,J
MACMA_27_2023
head injury and with left frontal bone fracture. The said injury was treated
conservatively and the patient paid an amount of Rs.19,095/- towards
medical treatment bill. P.W.2 further deposed that due to the head injury
suffered, the appellant experiences frequent giddiness and therefore,
suffered 30% partial permanent disability. Ex.A-8-disability certificate is
issued by P.W.2.
9. As per Ex.A-3-medicolegal certificate, the appellant suffered
abrasion over shoulders, blunt injury in chest, head injury and left frontal
bone fracture. The injuries are grievous in nature. The accident occurred
on 06.09.2014, whereas the medicolegal certificate was obtained on
21.09.2014. As per Ex.A-4, the appellant was admitted on 07.09.2014 and
was discharged on 11.09.2014 from Sri Sai Ram Multispeciality Hospital.
The injury suffered by the appellant is to the head. There is no evidence to
suggest that the head injury resulted in physical incapacity of the appellant
to carry out his work as an agricultural labourer. It is unfounded to claim
that head injury which could be treated in four days could result in
complete loss of earnings on account of loss of present avocation, as the
appellant was discharged in a stable condition within four days. The
avocation of the appellant as claimed by him is agricultural labourer, which
would be on temporary basis, unless he has his own agricultural lands. In
RY,J
MACMA_27_2023
the absence of such evidence, it is to be deemed that the appellant was a
labourer, who was engaged as daily wage labourer. The injuries which can
be treated in four days may not result in 100% functional disability. In the
absence of such evidence, 100% functional disability cannot be considered.
10. According to P.W.2, disability is of 30% which may or may not
occasionally result in loss of work. However, due to the inconvenience that
the appellant may face for the rest of his life an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is
hereby granted to the said discomfort experienced on account of giddiness
in addition to the compensation of Rs.54,095/- already awarded by the
Tribunal. In total, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,54,095/-
towards compensation.
11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.54,095/- to
Rs.1,54,095/- with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced
compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and
severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the
entire amount, without furnishing any security. The appellant shall deposit
RY,J
MACMA_27_2023
deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:07.08.2025
GVR
