Telangana High Court

Ashok Venkatesh Nada Gowda, Hyderabad vs Md Ahammadh Ali, Mahaboobnagar And Anr on 7 February, 2025

        THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1805 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (in short, "the Tribunal") in

M.V.O.P.No.2051 of 2012, dated 13.01.2016, the claim

petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they

were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the claim

petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondents for the

injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on

13.03.2012. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that on

13.03.2012 at about 6.00 p.m., after attending office work, when

he was waiting for a Bus at C.T.O Bus Stop, S.P.Road,

Secunderabad, at that time, one Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-

26-AD-1113, driven by its driver at a high speed, came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner and other persons

who were waiting at the bus-stop. As a result, the petitioner and

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

others fell down and sustained multiple fractures and grievous

injuries. The petitioner sustained compound comminuted fracture

of left leg and left arm, tibia and other injuries all over the body.

Immediately, he was shifted to Apollo Hospitals, St.John's Road,

Secunderabad where he was treated as inpatient from 13.03.2012

to 16.03.2012.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Ramagopalpet Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2012 under Section 337 of IPC

against the driver of said car.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that he underwent surgery for

ORIF-TIBIA for fracture comminuted Tibia and ORIF with plate and

with screws done and was treated medically with analgesics,

antibiotics and IV fluids and other supportive medication and was

under high dosage of medication and was advised for a total bed

rest with a review after one month. At the time of discharge, the

Doctors have explained the precautions and procedures to be

followed by him as he would have no mobility due to left leg

restricted movements. It is stated by the petitioner that he

incurred more than Rs.1,80,000/- towards his medical treatment

and he has to incur further a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards

medicinal charges and further operations. It is further stated by

the petitioner that he is aged 49 years and is working as Engineer

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

in Micron Electricals and used to get salary of Rs.18,500/- per

month. Due to the said accident and multiple fractures sustained

to him, he became unfit and unable to move from bed and still

undergoing outpatient treatment and is required continuous

medical treatment involving huge expenditure. Hence, filed claim

petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the

respondents who are the owner and insurer of crime Maruti Swift

Car bearing No.AP-26-AD-1113 involved in the accident.

6. Respondent No.1, owner of Maruti Swift Car bearing No.AP-

26-AD-1113, remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

manner of accident, involvement of crime car, occupation of the

petitioner/injured, age, income and contended that the petitioner

has to establish that the subject Car was insured with respondent

No.2 having valid insurance policy and that the driver of the said

car was holding valid driving license at the time of accident and

that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence

prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

(i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-26-AD-

1113, causing injuries to the petitioner?

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

(iii) To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner/injured,

PWs 1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On

behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no oral or

documentary evidence was adduced.

10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.3,25,883/- along

with proportionate costs and interest @ 7% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per

annum till the date of payment payable by both the Respondent

Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the said

compensation amount, the petitioner/injured preferred the present

Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

11. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellant/injured and Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the

entire record including the grounds of Appeal.

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellant/injured

are that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation

towards loss of income for a period of 6 months instead of 113

days; ought to have considered Ex.A14-Disability Certificate; ought

to have awarded a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of increment

by him till his retirement and loss of promotion on account of the

injuries and fractures sustained to him and also failed to award

future prospects to the income of the petitioner and hence, prayed

to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the appellant/injured

was awarded with excess amounts under physiotherapy treatment,

removal of implants and the same can be compensated towards

considering the disability sustained by him and the compensation

arrived by the Tribunal is reasonable which do not require any

further enhancement by this Court.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount?

POINT:-

15. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/injured

examined himself as PW1, reiterated the contents made in the

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident, rash and

negligence on part of the driver of crime car, injuries sustained by

him in the alleged accident, expenses incurred towards medical

treatment. In order to prove the injuries and disability sustained by

the petitioner, he got examined PW2- Orthopedic Surgeon.

16. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner was

admitted in their Hospital on 13.03.2012 with the injures of

(1) Fracture Tibia left leg and (2) Wrist Subluxation with pop and

was operated with WIMPOP plate and screw and was discharged on

16.03.2012 with follow-up treatment. He stated that Exs.A4, A5,

A6, A7 and A14 were issued by their Hospital. He also stated that

the petitioner sustained 25% disability which is permanent in

nature and the injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous in

nature and it will take more than 6 months to heal.

17. PW3, Billing incharge in Apollo Hospital, deposed in his

evidence that the petitioner paid an amount of Rs.83,995/- by

cash towards the treatment undergone by him and Exs.A8 & A10

are issued by their Hospital.

18. PW4, who is working as H.R. in Micron Electricals,

Hyderabad, deposed that the petitioner/injured was working as

Site Engineer in their office since 01.07.2005 and was drawing

monthly salary of Rs.18,500/- and he could not attend the office

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

for a period of 113 days due to the alleged accident and Ex.A15

letter is issued by him.

19. Though PWs1 to 4 were cross-examined, nothing worthwhile

was elicited to disbelieve their testimony except denying the

suggestions put to them by the respondent/Insurance Company,

20. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1- FIR

reveals that Police of Ramagopalpet Police Station, Hyderabad,

registered a case in Crime No.53 of 2012 under Section 337 of IPC,

conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against

the driver of crime Car. Ex.A3 is the injury certificate issued by

Apollo Hospital. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary. Exs.A5 & A7

are the outpatient assessment issued by Institute of Orthopedics.

Ex.A6 are the prescriptions. Ex.A8 is the Bill issued by Apollo

Hospitals. Ex.A9 are the receipts. Ex.A10 is the follow up bills

and other bills. Ex.A11 is the bill issued by Krupa Physiotherapy

Centre. Ex.A12 is the Ambulance bill. Ex.A13 is the estimation

letter for removal of nails. Ex.A14 is the Disability Certificate.

Ex.A15 is the loss of pay letter for Rs.3,40,000/-. Ex.A16 is the

statement of Bank account. Ex.A17 is the X-ray.

21. Therefore, from the above oral evidence of PWs1 to 4 coupled

with the documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to A17, it is held to

be proved that the petitioner sustained fracture injury and other

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

simple injuries in the accident that occurred on 13.03.2012 due to

the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime car which

finding of the learned Tribunal attains finality and requires no

interference by this Court.

22. The main contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/injured in the present Appeal is that the learned

Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards loss of

income for a period of 6 months instead of 113 days.

23. In this regard, a perusal of Ex.A15- Certificate issued by

Micron Electricals discloses that the petitioner was absent for duty

from 13.03.2012 to 22.07.2012 i.e. for a period of 113 days and he

incurred loss in salary to an amount of Rs.70,000/- approximately.

Hence, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration Ex.A15-

Certificate, awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- towards loss of earnings

for 113 days by considering his income @ Rs.18,500/- per month.

This Court, by considering the evidence of PW2-Orthopedic

Surgeon, who deposed that the injuries sustained by the petitioner

are grievous in nature and it would take more than 6 months to

one year for healing and taking into account Ex.A16- Computerized

statement of bank account showing that the monthly salary of the

petitioner was being credited to his bank account from November,

2012 i.e., 6 months after the date of accident, is inclined to

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award

loss of salary for a period of 6 months instead of 113 days.

24. The other contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant/injured is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the

disability sustained by him and calculate the compensation.

25. A perusal of Ex.A14-Disability Certificate shows that the said

certificate was issued after a period of one year nine months by

which time the injuries sustained by the petitioner would have got

healed. Further, Ex.A3-Injury certificate discloses that the patient

was discharged on 16.03.2012 in a stable condition.

26. Though PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner

sustained disability to the extent of 20-25%, but there is no

whisper as to the difficulty suffered by the petitioner in his day to

day activities. Further, as per Ex.A16, the petitioner is attending

office duty from the month of November, 2012. Hence, there is no

point in considering the loss of future income under Ex.A14-

Disability Certificate.

27. It is further contented by the learned counsel for

appellant/injured that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded

a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of increment by him till his

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

retirement and loss of promotion on account of the injuries and

fractures sustained to him.

28. In this regard, it is relevant to mention that PW4, who issued

Ex.A15- letter deposed that there is loss of increment @ Rs.2,500/-

per month to the petitioner and the cumulative loss caused till his

retirement comes to Rs.2,70,000/-. It is common knowledge that

when an employee applies for medical leave, the date of annual

increment will be postponed by the number of days for which the

medical leave was applied and it cannot be denied for his entire

service. Moreover, the petitioner had not filed any proceedings to

show that his annual grade increment was denied for his entire

service. Hence, the appellant/injured cannot be awarded a sum of

Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of increment till his retirement.

Further, the petitioner had not filed any proceedings issued by

Micron Electricals to show that he was denied promotion only due

to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident nor PW4

deposed anything about the denial of promotion to the petitioner

on the ground of the said injuries. Moreover, Ex.A16-Statement of

Bank account of the petitioner shows that salary was being

credited to bank account from the month of November, 2012 and

he is continuing in service. As the petitioner was in service and is

getting salary every month, this Court is not inclined to award

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

future prospects to the income of the petitioner as he is fit enough

to complete remaining years of service.

29. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and

by this Court is detailed below:-

 S.No.    Name of the Head       Amount                  Amount
                                 awarded       by        awarded     by
                                 Tribunal                this Court
                                   Rs.70,000/-           Rs.1,11,000/-
1.        Loss of earnings for 6 (for a period of         (for       six
          months                    113 days)            months)

          Fracture injury                Rs.20,000/-         Enhanced to
2.                                                           Rs.25,000/-
          Simple injury                   Rs.3,000/-         Enhanced to
3.                                                            Rs.5,000/-
          Medical bills                  Rs.90,583/-     -
4.
          Physiotherapy                  Rs.42,000/-     -
5.        treatment
          Removal of implants            Rs.55,000/-     -
6.
          Pain and suffering for         Rs.30,000/-         Enhanced to
7.        3 months                                            Rs.60,000/-
                                                         (by considering it for
                                                         6 months)
          Transportation                  Rs.5,300/-     -
8.
          Extra Nourishment               Rs.5,000/-     -
9.
          Damage to clothes               Rs.5,000/-


11.       TOTAL COMPENSATION             Rs.3,25,883/-   Rs.4,03,883/-

30. Further, as seen from the impugned judgment, the learned

Tribunal awarded interest @ 7% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 6% per annum till

the date of payment. This Court, by relying upon the decision of

MGP,J MACMA.No.1805 OF 2016

the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and

others 1, hereby award uniform interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the

respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally.

31. In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/injured is

partly- allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded

by the Tribunal from Rs.3,25,883/- to Rs.4,03,883/- along with