Telangana High Court

Amgothu Mangi vs V Hari Chander on 13 February, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.3489 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 24.01.2014

(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.739 of 2010, 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

her in the road traffic accident that occurred on 01.03.2010.

The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries in

the accident is that on 01.03.2010 she along with her husband

and children were proceeding from Warangal to Thorrur in their

auto bearing No. AP 36 W 0396 to attend Durgamma festival

and at about 22.00 hours at Ellanda Village, Wardhannapet

MGP,J

Mandal, one Maruthi Car bearing No.AP 36 AB 8851

(hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') being driven by its

driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and

dashed their auto. As a result, the petitioner along with her

family members sustained injuries. The petitioner sustained

injury on left eye, nose, upper lip, right knee and closed fracture

of both bones of right leg middle 1/3rd and other injuries all over

the body.

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, which was being driven in

negligent manner with high speed.

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

Exs.A1 to A5 and Ex.X1 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.29,275/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of

MGP,J

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the

appellant/petitioner preferred the present Appeal to enhance

the compensation.

6. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Madishetty, learned counsel for the

appellant/petitioner, Sri P. Bhanu Prakash, 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 A3 (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 the compensation awarded by the

learned Tribunal is very meager.

MGP,J

9. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned

Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner was awarded an amount

of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,275/- towards

medical bills, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/-

towards hospital expenses, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

sufferance.

10. As per the chief examination affidavit of the petitioner as

PW1, the petitioner alleged to have sustained injury on left

black eye, injury on nose, injury on upper lip, injury on right

knee and close fracture of both bones of right leg middle 1/3rd

and other injuries all over the body. In order to substantiate

her contention, the petitioner got examined the doctor, who

treated her at the time of accident. PW2 deposed in his chief

examination that the petitioner sustained injuries over black eye

left, nose, laceration over upper lip (2 x 1 x ½ cms), abrasion

over the knee joint (4 x 2 cms) and fracture of both bones of

right leg. Apart from the oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the

petitioner relied upon the documentary evidence under Ex.A2

i.e., MLC register issued by Mahatma Gandhi Memorial

Hospital, Warangal. Ex.A5 is the original discharge card issued

by Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Warangal, which

discloses that the petitioner sustained two fractures to right leg.

MGP,J

Thus, it is clear that Exs.A2 and A5 are in tune with the

evidence given by PW2. The learned Tribunal except awarding

Rs.10,000/- has not awarded any amount to each of the specific

injuries mentioned in Ex.A2. PW1 deposed that on 17.03.2010

operation was conducted and closed reduction and internal

fixation of right tibia and ILN tibia under SA was done. She

further deposed that due to injury on right knee and closed

fracture of both bones of right leg 1/3rd, she is unable to walk.

She also deposed that due to injuries on nose and upper lip she

is unable to breath and her face was disfigured. In these

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

(Rs.5,000/- x 4 simple injuries) and Rs.50,000/- (Rs.25,000/- x

2 fracture injuries) sustained by the petitioner.

11. A perusal of the petition filed by the petitioner discloses

that the petitioner alleged to have claimed Rs.6,000/- towards

loss of earnings and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation. A

perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal,

it is clear that the petitioner was awarded an amount of

Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,275/- towards

medical bills, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/-

towards hospital expenses, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

sufferance. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to

MGP,J

compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal so far as under

the heads of 'loss of earnings' and 'transportation', since the

learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation as claimed by

the petitioner under the those heads.

12. Now coming to the compensation under the head 'medical

expenses and extra nourishment', the petitioner claimed

Rs.20,000/- and whereas the learned Tribunal awarded

Rs.10,000/- towards hospital expenses only on the ground that

the treatment obtained by the petitioner at MGM hospital was

free of cost. The learned Tribunal failed to award any amount

under the head 'extra nourishment'. Since the petitioner

sustained few simple injuries apart from two fracture injuries,

she might require vitamin supplements and good nutritious

food to recover quickly from the injuries sustained by her.

Hence, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-

towards extra nourishment. Apart from that the petitioner may

not have discharged her day to day activities due to the injuries

sustained by her. Hence, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded

towards attendant charges.

13. Though the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.72,000/-

towards disability, no ample evidence was adduced on behalf of

MGP,J

the petitioner to substantiate that she suffered disability on

account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The

doctor, who has provided treatment to PW1, also did not depose

anything about the disability alleged to have sustained by PW1.

14. It is the contention of the petitioner that implants were

inserted at the time of surgery of the petitioner and for removal

of the same, an amount of Rs.20,000/- may be required. In this

connection, PW2 deposed in his chief examination affidavit that

if the patient develop any pain due to the presence of implant, a

future surgery may be required for removal of the said implants

and if surgery is done by a private hospital the total cost of

surgery including medicines may cost Rs.20,000/-. No

estimation bill is filed by the petitioner to substantiate that an

amount of Rs.20,000/- is required for removal of implants.

However, in the cross examination, PW2 admitted that if the

patient goes for future surgery for removal of implants at MGM

Hospital, Warangal, it would be done at free of cost and that the

treatment given to the patient by MGM was free of costs. In

such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to award any

amount for removal of implants, as the petitioner can avail the

opportunity of getting the implants removed from her body by

obtaining treatment at MGM hospital. But the fact remains is

MGP,J

that the though petitioner can avail treatment for removal of

implants under "Arogya Sree Scheme', he has to meet the

expenditure of medicines subsequent to the removal of

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

Rs.10,000/- toward 'future medical expenses'.

15. 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                               10,000/-

  2.        Hospital expenses                                 10,000/-

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

  4.        Four simple injuries (Rs.5,000/- x 4)             20,000/-

  5.        Attendant charges                                    5,000/-

  6.        Transportation expenses                              2,000/-

  7.        Extra nourishment                                    5,000/-

  8.        Medical bills                                        1,275/-

  9.        Loss of earnings                                     6,000/-

  10.       Future medical expenses                           10,000/-

                                             Total         1,19,275/-

16. The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 6% per

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

MGP,J

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

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

learned Tribunal from 6% per annum to 7.5% per annum.

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

the compensation amount from Rs.29,275/- to Rs.1,19,275/-,

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