Telangana High Court

G.Sangameshwar vs R.Yadagiri on 7 February, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.1246 OF 2010

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the judgment and Decree dated 19.05.2010

(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment') passed by

the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC) at

Sangareddy (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in

M.V.O.P.No.315 of 2008, the petitioner/claimant filed the

present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are

referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record

are that the petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-

from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by

him in the road accident that occurred on 03.12.2007. The

reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries in the

accident is that on 03.12.2007 while he was proceeding in an

auto bearing No. AP 23 V 4867 from Zaheerabad to Gopularam,

at Bharath Petrol Pump on NH No.9, Maruthi Zen Car bearing

No.AP28 K 007 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle')

MGP,J

being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, dashed

the auto, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture injuries.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1/owner

of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas the

respondent No.2/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter

denying the petition averments and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition on the ground that there was contributory negligence

on the part of driver of the auto.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs 1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A11 were got marked. On behalf of respondents,

no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1 copy of

insurance policy was marked. Based on the oral and

documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the

appellant/petitioner preferred the present Appeal to enhance

the compensation.

6. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner, Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned

Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company

and perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.

MGP,J

7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 and 2

have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned

judgment. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of

the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral

evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence under

Exs.A1 (FIR) and A2 (charge sheet) arrived to a conclusion that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

crime vehicle. Further, there is also no dispute with regard to

the subsistence of the policy at the time of accident as evident

from Ex.B1.

8. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that though the doctor, who treated the

petitioner was examined as PW2, deposed that petitioner has to

undergo further treatment for removal of rods with an

appropriate medical expenses of Rs.25,000/-, the learned

Tribunal has not awarded the said expenses. The learned

Tribunal has not considered the above piece of evidence

adduced by PW2 on the ground that there was no bill, however,

the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.11,000/- towards follow up

treatment. But it is pertinent to note that PW2 is none other

than the doctor, who has provided treatment to the petitioner.

There is also no dispute that the petitioner has sustained

MGP,J

fracture injuries and in this regard some implants were inserted

into the body of the petitioner during the course of surgery.

Thus, there is necessity to remove the said implants, for which,

the petitioner has to incur some expenditure. Apart from that

the petitioner also requires some expenditure for physiotherapy

charges. Hence, the amount of Rs.11,000/- awarded by the

learned Tribunal under the head 'follow up treatment' is

enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

though the petitioner has sustained three fracture injuries, the

learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.40,000/- for

the two fracture injuries.

10. As can be seen from the evidence of PW2, who has

provided treatment to the petitioner, three fracture injuries were

sustained by the petitioner i.e., fracture to his right femur,

fracture to right tibia and fibula. However, as per the Ex.A4 the

petitioner sustained only two fracture injuries i.e., fracture to

right femur and fracture to right tibia. Thus, the evidence of

PW2 is not in tune with Ex.A4 so far as number of fracture

injuries sustained by the petitioner. But this Court is of the

considered view that the compensation awarded by the learned

MGP,J

Tribunal for the two fracture injuries is appearing to be on

lesser side. Hence, the petitioner is awarded Rs.50,000/-

towards two fracture injuries i.e., Rs.25,000/- to each of the

fracture injuries.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

the petitioner has visited the hospital on ten occasions for

obtaining treatment but the learned Tribunal has awarded

meager amount of Rs.1,500/- towards transportation expenses.

It is pertinent to note that since the petitioner has sustained

fracture injuries, he has to visit orthopedic centre apart from

diagnostic centre, medical shops and physiotherapy centers for

his treatment as well as follow up treatment. Hence, the

petitioner might have incurred considerable amount towards

transportation. Hence, this Court is inclined to award

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges.

12. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to award any

compensation under the head of 'attendant charges'. Since the

petitioner has sustained grievous fracture injuries, he may not

be in a position to attend his day to day activities during his bed

ridden period. Hence, this Court is inclined to award a sum of

Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges.

MGP,J

13. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.32,427/-

towards medical bills. However, considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, the compensation amount

of Rs.32,427/- awarded by the learned Tribunal towards

medical bills is on lesser side. Thus, this Court is inclined to

award Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenses.

14. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards

pain and sufferance and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment,

which are appearing to be just and reasonable in view of the

facts and circumstances of the case.

15. Thus, in all, the appellant/claimant is entitled for the

compensation under various heads, as follows:

   Sl.No.            Name of the head               Compensation
                                                    awarded to the
                                                    claimant (Rs.)

  1.        Pain and sufferance                           10,000/-

  2.        Medical expenses                              40,000/-

  3.        Two fracture injuries (Rs.25,000 x 2)         50,000/-

  4.        Transportation expenses                       10,000/-

  5.        Attendant charges                                5,000/-

  6.        Follow up treatment                           25,000/-

  7.        Extra nourishment                                5,000/-

                                           Total        1,45,000/-


                                                                           MGP,J

16. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation amount from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.1,45,000/-,

which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing the claim application till the date of realization. The

respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the

compensation amount within one month from the date of

receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner

is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to him

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.