Telangana High Court

B Srinu , Srinivas Goud, Medak Dist vs M. Laxman, Secunderabad And Another on 17 February, 2025

      HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A.No.625 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 08.11.2016

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

learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court At Hyderabad (hereinafter will be

referred as 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.1475 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 filed claim petition under Section 163-A

of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries

sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on

30.05.2012. The reason assigned by the petitioner for

sustaining injuries in the accident is that on 30.05.2012 he

along with his friend by name Prasad went to Majeedpur Cross

Roads in an auto bearing No. AP 23 X 2257 for collecting

amount from one Ch. Ramulu and while returning back to

MGP,J

Medchal at about 2.00 PM when they reached near Majeedpur X

Roads, a TATA ACE bearing No. AP 15 X 5299 (hereinafter will

be referred as 'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver at high

speed in rash and negligent manner came in oppose direction

from Medchal side and dashed the said auto. As a result, the

petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is submitted that since

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of

the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No.1 and

insured with respondent No.2, hence, both the respondents are

jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

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.

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

Exs.A1 to A7 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.1,03,000/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

MGP,J

awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/petitioner

preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

6. Heard Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, 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 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 learned Tribunal did not consider

Ex.A5 disability certificate issued by PW2 on the ground that

PW2 has not treated the appellant. In this connection, the

learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision in

MGP,J

Charan Singh v. G. Vittal Rddy and another 1, wherein it was

observed that any qualified doctor can assess the disability vis-

a-vis loss of earning capacity and it is not necessary that he

should be the same doctor, who has treated the injured. He

further relied upon a decision of this Court in S. Murali

Krishnan @ Murali v. R.S.Siva Kumar and another 2, wherein

it was observed that disability certificate need not necessarily be

issued only by the doctor who treated the claimant. The learned

counsel for the petitioner/appellant while relying on the

decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed 3 submitted

that even though the claimant does not suffer from 100%

physical permanent disability, he suffers from 100% functional

disability if he loses the capacity to pursue his work as a result

of the accident.

9. The petitioner alleged to have sustained grievous injuries

to his right leg, left fore arm, head and other parts. In this

regard, the petitioner relied upon Ex.A2 Wound Certificate

issued by Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences. Ex.A2

discloses that the petitioner sustained three simple injuries and

1 2003 (3) ALD 183 (DB) 2 2016 (4) ALD 83 3 2007 (2) SCC 349

MGP,J

one grievous injury. The petitioner got examined the doctor,

who has assessed the disability of the petitioner as PW2. As per

the evidence of PW2, the petitioner sustained fracture of shaft

femur grade - 2 compound communited fracture apart from

injuries on the left fore arm and other injuries on the

head/scalp. PW2 deposed that due to the squatting of the leg,

knee joint movement is restricted and thereby the petitioner

sustained 30% permanent disability.

10. As per Ex.A4, the disability certified by PW2 is alleged to

be partial and permanent in nature. Further, the accident

alleged to have taken place on 31.05.2012 and whereas the

Ex.A5 disability certificate was issued on 08.01.2016 i.e. more

than three and half years from the date of accident. It is to be

observed that during the period of three and half years, the

chance of recovering from the said injury at least to some extent

is more. A "partial and permanent" injury means an injury that

has caused damage to a part of the body, impacting its function,

but does not completely disable the person from performing all

his activities. In fact, such injury has a lasting impairment

that affects their ability to work or live normally to a certain

degree, but not entirely.

MGP,J

11. A perusal of Ex.A5 discloses that there is difficulty to the

petitioner in walking, sitting and there is shortening of leg. But

surprisingly PW2 did not depose the difficulties that are faced

by the petitioner/PW1 in his chief examination. The only aspect

deposed by PW2 in his chief examination is that due to the

disability the petitioner cannot undertake labour hard work. In

the chief examination of the petitioner as PW1, he deposed that

he is working as office boy. Thus, the question of doing hard

labour work does not arise. Moreover, the petitioner did not

establish that due to the injuries his capacity to earn has been

reduced. Mere difficulty in sitting and walking cannot be

termed as disability. That apart, as per Ex.A5, the leg of the

petitioner, was alleged to have been shortened. But

surprisingly, passport size photograph of the petitioner was

affixed on the disability certificate under EX.A5. Usually the

photograph showing the deformity or disability of the injured

will be affixed on the disability certificate but not a passport size

photograph. Without the foolscap size photograph of the

injured, it cannot be assessed with regard to the shortening of

the leg or any other deformity or disability of the injured.

Moreover, PW2 did not depose or mention in Ex.A5 as to which

extent the leg of petitioner/PW1 was shortened.

MGP,J

12. Further, Ex.A5 was issued just two months before the

date of examination of PW2. It appears that only for the

purpose of this case, during the pendency of the case, the

petitioner alleged to have visited PW2 and obtained Ex.A5. If at

all the petitioner has suffered any disability, the petitioner

ought to have consulted the nearest orthopedic hospital at the

relevant point of time. It is the case of the petitioner that he has

sustained permanent disability and whereas Ex.A5 discloses

that the disability is of partial permanent. Since, the disability

is partial and permanent in nature, there is every chance of

recovering from the said injuries. All these aspects create any

amount of suspicion with regard to genuineness of Ex.A5.

13. In view of the above discussion, the principles laid down

in the above said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the

present case. Hence, the petitioner/PW1 is not entitled for any

amount towards disability, especially when there is any amount

suspicion or ambiguity with regard to the genuineness of Ex.A5.

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

grievous injury sustained by the petitioner, however, it appears

that the same is on lesser side. Hence, this Court is inclined to

award Rs.25,000/- for the fracture injury sustained by the

MGP,J

petitioner. So far as the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/-

awarded by the learned Tribunal for the three simple injuries

i.e., Rs.5,000/- to each of the three injuries is appearing to be

just and sufficient. Further, the compensation amount of

Rs.20,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for the pain and

suffering also appearing to be just and appropriate.

15. It is pertinent to note that though the learned Tribunal

has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards future expenses for removal

of implants, it failed to award any amount for the medical and

hospital expenses already incurred by the petitioner for

treatment. The petitioner underwent surgery at Mediciti

Hospital, Hyderabad and also obtained treatment for a period of

one week from 31.05.2012 to 06.06.2012 as inpatient.

However, except filing discharge summary, the petitioner has

not filed any documentary evidence to establish the hospital

and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner at Mediciti

Hospital. The petitioner alleged to have obtained treatment at

Pavan Sai Hospital, Nagole as per Ex.A6. The petitioner has

claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards extra nourishment

and medical expenses. The learned Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The

impugned order is silent with regard to grant of any amount for

MGP,J

hospital and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner.

Further, PW2 in his evidence expressed that the petitioner

might have incurred about Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/- towards

expenditure for surgery. Considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and also taking into consideration

the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Exs.A4 and A6, this

court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards

hospital and medical expenses.

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

Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner alleged to have been

working as office boy in ITC Company and earning Rs.9,000/-

per month but he failed to produce any documentary evidence

to establish that he was earning Rs.9,000/- per month. In such

circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded an

amount of Rs.18,000/- towards loss of earnings by fixing the

monthly salary of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- for the bed ridden

period of three months. The learned Tribunal has awarded an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, which is

appearing to be just and sufficient. Thus, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with findings of the learned Tribunal so far

as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the

heads 'loss of earnings' and 'transportation' is concerned.

MGP,J

17. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount

under the head 'attendant charges'. Due to fracture injury, the

petitioner may not have discharged his day to day activities due

to the injuries sustained by him during the bed ridden period.

Hence, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attendant

charges.

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                         20,000/-
  2.        Future hospital expenses for                20,000/-
            removal of implants
  3.        One fracture injury (Rs.25,000 x 1)         25,000/-
  4.        For    three     simple     injuries        15,000/-
            (Rs.5,000/- x 3)
  5.        Attendant charges                            5,000/-
  6.        Transportation expenses                      5,000/-
  7.        Extra nourishment                            5,000/-
  8.        Hospital and Medical bills                  40,000/-
  9.        Loss of earnings (Rs.6,000/- x 3            18,000/-
            months)
                                        Total          1,53,000/-

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

annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and

thereafter @ 6% per annum till realization. However, as per the

decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.

MGP,J

Rajbir Singh and others 4 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. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation amount from Rs.1,03,000/- to Rs.1,53,000/-,

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

filing the claim application till the date of realization. The