Telangana High Court

Chincheti Averi, Hyderabad vs M Naveen Kumar Reddy, Ranga Reddy Dist ... on 12 February, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                 M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 OF 2016

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 22.02.2016

(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned Award') passed by the

learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - II

Additional District Judge, Warangal (hereinafter will be referred

as 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2013, 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, being minor represented by her natural

guardian and father, filed claim petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

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

her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 07.08.2012.

The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries in

the accident is that on 07.08.2012 at 8.00 PM she along with

her father were proceeding in an Auto bearing No. AP 22 Y 1811

(hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') from Jilledu

MGP,J

towards Choudariguda and when the auto reached near turning

of Padmaram Village, a Tipper bearing No. AP 12 V 6128 being

driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed

dashed the said auto. As a result, the petitioner fell down and

received multiple grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.78 of

2012 of Kondurg Police Station was registered for the offence

under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of

the crime vehicle. It is submitted by the petitioner that since

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the crime vehicle, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the owner

and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable

to pay the compensation.

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

mainly contending that the driver of the crime had no valid

driving license to drive the said class of vehicle and that the

crime vehicle was not worthy enough to ply on the road. It was

further contended that policy was not issued in favour of the

crime vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive

and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition.

MGP,J

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

Exs.A1 to A6 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.80,000/-. 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 A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned Standing

Counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company and

perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.

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

have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned Award.

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, though the respondent No.2 argued that

policy was not issued in favour of the crime vehicle, a perusal of

MGP,J

Ex.B1 reveals that at the time of accident the insurance policy

in respect of crime vehicle was subsisting.

8. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner is that though the petitioner sustained

fracture injuries to her right elbow, which is causing much

inconvenience to her in writing and reading to pursue her future

education, the learned Tribunal awarded meager compensation.

9. A perusal of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary

evidence under Ex.A3 discloses that the petitioner alleged to

have sustained lacerated wounds apart from fracture of right

elbow. That apart, the petitioner also examined the doctor of

Trident Hospital as PW2, who alleged to have provided

treatment to the petitioner at the time of the accident in order to

prove the nature of injuries sustained by her. PW2 deposed

that the petitioner was examined on 07.08.2012 and found deep

laceration measuring about 2 x 1 x 5 cm over right elbow for

which treatment was done. He further deposed that the x-ray

shows fracture of elbow, which is grievous injury.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance

Company while bringing to the notice of the Court paragraph

No.12 of the impugned order argued that the evidence of PWs 1

MGP,J

and 2 reveals that the petitioner was treated as an outpatient in

the hospital, as such, the injuries sustained by the petitioner

were not grievous in nature.

11. There is no hard and fast rule that a patient, who

sustained fracture injuries, has to be provided treatment only as

inpatient. Ex.A3 coupled with oral evidence of PW2 clearly

discloses that the petitioner sustained fracture of right elbow,

which is grievous injury. As can be seen from the impugned

order, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/-for the

grievous injury but since the petitioner sustained fracture

injury, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,000/- for the

fracture injury sustained by the petitioner. Further, the learned

Tribunal did not award any compensation for the lacerated

injury sustained by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is inclined

to award Rs.5,000/- for the simple injury sustained by the

petitioner. So far as the compensation amount of Rs.30,000/-

awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head 'pain and

suffering' is appearing to be just and reasonable.

12. Further, having sustained simple as well as grievous

injuries, the petitioner may not be able to attend her day to day

activities without the assistance of an attendant. The learned

MGP,J

Tribunal has not awarded an amount under the head 'attendant

charges'. Thus, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/-

towards attendant charges.

13. Now coming to the medical expenses, the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.3,542/- towards reimbursement of medical

bills. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.25,000/- for the

doctor's fee and treatment charges. But the learned Tribunal

did not consider the said plea on the ground that no bill is filed

to that effect and that PW2 also did not depose anything on the

said aspect. At this juncture it is appropriate to refer to the

evidence of PW2, who deposed that Ex.A5 i.e. bills were issued

by their hospital to the extent of Rs.28,542/-. However, a

perusal of the number of bills filed under Ex.A5, it does not

disclose that the petitioner paid Rs.25,000/-to the

hospital/doctor fee towards and hospital and medical expenses.

There is no dispute that the petitioner sustained grievous and

simple injuries. In such circumstances, the petitioner might

have spent some amount towards lab expenses, hospital

expenses and medical expenses. It cannot be assumed that the

for the treatment of fracture injuries, petitioner has incurred

only Rs.3,542/- in these days of high standard of living. It is

pertinent to note that the petitioner has to obtain follow up

MGP,J

treatment also for quick recovery from the injuries sustained by

her. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.20,000/-

towards hospital and medical expenses apart from the medical

expenses of Rs.3,542/- awarded by the learned Tribunal. Thus,

the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.23,542/- hospital

and medical expenses.

14. The petitioner has claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of

marriage prospects and Rs.1,70,000/- towards loss of

life/future earnings powers, maintenance and loss of

consortium. The learned Tribunal observed at page No.7 and in

paragraph No.15 of the impugned order that since the petitioner

is unmarried and minor, she is not entitled for consortium. In

the context of injury cases, "consortium" refers to the legal claim

made by a spouse or close family member of an injured person,

seeking compensation for the loss of companionship, support,

and services due to the injuries sustained by the injured party,

essentially claiming damages for the disruption of their

relationship with the injured person as a result of the accident.

Loss of consortium is non-economic damage available in some

injury cases. Compensation for loss of consortium can be

claimed when the claimant can prove that he/she was deprived

of the benefits of a family relationship because of the accident.

MGP,J

But in the instant case, there is no such case. Hence, the

petitioner is not entitled for any amount under the head 'loss of

consortium'. Now coming to the loss of future earning powers,

maintenance and loss of life, it is pertinent to note that the

petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability so as to

affect her marriage prospects or future prospects or to say that

she suffered any loss of future life. Even PW2 i.e., the doctor,

who has provided treatment to the petitioner, did not whisper

anything about the permanent disability much less disability of

the petitioner. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that

the injuries sustained by the petitioner would cause hindrance

to the marriage prospects or earnings of the petitioner in future.

Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under the

head 'loss of life/future earnings powers, maintenance and loss

of consortium'.

15. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards

transportation, which is appearing to be on lesser side. It is

pertinent to note that immediately after the accident, the

injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Shadnagar and

from there to Trident Hospital, Shamshabad for better

treatment. The injured is resident of Musheerabad and thus,

considerable amount might have been spent towards

MGP,J

transportation for traveling from Musheerabad to Shamshabad

as the petitioner obtained treatment as inpatient in Trident

Hospital. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/-

towards transportation.

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

loss of education and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment,

which are appearing to be just and reasonable considering the

facts and circumstances of the case.

17. Though the petitioner has claimed an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards damages to clothing and articles, the

petitioner failed to aver and establish as to what were the

damages that were caused to the clothing and articles belonging

to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any

amount under the head 'damages to clothing and articles'.

18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, 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                               30,000/-

  2.        Hospital and Medical expenses                     23,542/-


                                                                      MGP,J





   3.          One fracture injury                       25,000/-

   4.          One simple injury                            5,000/-

   5.          Attendant charges                            5,000/-

   6.          Transportation expenses                   10,000/-

   7.          Extra nourishment                         10,000/-

   8.          Loss of education                         10,000/-

                                          Total       1,18,542/-

19. The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 8% per

annum. However, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex

Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1 this

Court is inclined to reduce the rate of interest granted by the

learned Tribunal from 8% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

20. At the time of filing of the petition before the learned

Tribunal, the age of the petitioner was 12 years and thus, the

learned Tribunal directed the compensation amount to be

deposited in any nationalized bank till the petitioner attains the

age of majority. But by now the petitioner might have attained

the age of majority, thus, the purpose for which the learned

Tribunal has ordered for depositing the amount in any