Telangana High Court
E. Mahesh, vs St. Joseph Public School, on 18 February, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3058 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.09.2017
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum - XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil
Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in
M.A.T.O.P.No.2379 of 2011, the petitioner/claimant has filed
the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the 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.2,50,000/-
from the respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by
him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 26.09.2011.
The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries in
the accident is that on 26.09.2011 he along with his friend by
name V. Raju were proceeding from Malkajgiri towards
Addagutta on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 09 S
8337 and when they reached Mirzalguda, Kattalmandi, a Swaraj
MGP,J
Mazda bearing registration No. AP 29 U 2135 (hereinafter will be
referred as 'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver at high
speed in rash and negligent manner came in oppose direction
and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner while overtaking
another vehicle. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures
and other multiple injuries all over the body. 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 including the age, earnings of
the petitioner as driver, involvement of the crime vehicle,
manner of the accident 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, RWs
1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked apart from
Exs.X1 and X2. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,
MGP,J
the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,08,480/-.
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 Jagathpal Reddy Kasireddy, learned counsel for
the appellant/petitioner, Sri Kota Subba Rao, 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 order.
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), A2 (charge sheet), A4 (accident 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 (copy of insurance policy).
8. As per the evidence of PW1, he sustained a grievous
injury i.e., shaft femur left 1/3rd apart from other simple
injuries to head, left hand and right hand. As per Ex.A3 Medico
MGP,J
Legal Certificate issued by LK Hospital Private Limited, the
petitioner alleged to have sustained fracture to shaft femur and
there is no whisper with regard to any of the other simple
injuries alleged to have been sustained by the petitioner in the
accident that occurred on 23.11.2011.
9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider
the quantum of medical expenses incurred by the petitioner at
LK Hospital and erred in brushing aside the oral testimony of
PW2, who categorically denied about the petitioner not receiving
any treatment under Arogya Sree Scheme and thus, a sum of
Rs.50,000/- as claimed towards medical expenses ought to have
been awarded by the learned Tribunal.
10. It is the contention of the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company that the petitioner obtained treatment under Arogya
Sree, as such the petitioner has not incurred any amount. In
this regard, it was elicited by the learned counsel for the
respondent No.2/Insurance Company from the cross
examination of petitioner/PW1 that he was treated under
Arogya Sree Scheme. Though similar suggestion was given to
PW2 i.e., the doctor, who has provided treatment to the
MGP,J
petitioner at LK Hospitals, the said suggestion was denied by
PW2. As per the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has
rightly awarded Rs.25,480/- towards medical expenses by
relying on the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary
evidence under Exs.A8 and A13. It is not the case of the
petitioner that though the petitioner has filed necessary
documentary evidence to substantiate that he has incurred
Rs.50,000/- towards the medical expenses, the learned Tribunal
has not awarded the same. When the petitioner failed to file
any other documentary evidence to establish that he has
incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, the learned
Tribunal cannot award the amount based on assumptions and
presumptions. Hence, the above contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable.
11. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the
petitioner sustained severe injuries, due to which he is unable
to sit or squat and thereby lost his prospects, however, the
learned Tribunal did not award towards future loss of earnings.
It is further contended that it would be difficult for the
petitioner to get suitable alliances in view of nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner.
MGP,J
12. In the chief examination PW1 deposed that he is unable to
drive his vehicle, as such, he sustained loss of income at 100%;
still his movements are restricted; left leg is shortened; limping
in walking; difficult to sit and squat. In order to establish the
injuries sustained by the petitioner, the doctor, who treated the
petitioner at LK Hospital, was examined as PW2. In the cross
examination, PW2 admitted that the petitioner did not suffer
any difficulty while walking, sitting, squatting and that the
patient is comfortable and that the petitioner can discharge his
duties of routine work. Thus, the above evidence of PW1
describing his difficulties in attending his day to day activities
has not been corroborated with the evidence of PW2.
13. Though the petitioner contended that his leg was
shortened, the petitioner failed to file any disability certificate to
establish that his leg was shortened after conducting operation.
Though the petitioner filed his photograph, the said photograph
does not reveal that the petitioner's leg was shortened.
Moreover, it is pertinent to make an observation on the evidence
of PW2, who admitted in his cross examination that the injuries
sustained by the patient (petitioner) were healed and the
operation conducted by him was success. PW2 did not even
depose anything about the disability alleged to have been
MGP,J
suffered by the petitioner due to the accident. When the
petitioner failed to establish that he has sustained any
disability, the question of not getting suitable alliances to him
also does not arise. In these circumstances, the above
contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is
suffering from various difficulties after the accident is
untenable, more particularly, when the doctor, who has
provided treatment to PW1, admitted in his cross examination
that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were healed and that
there is no difficulty for the petitioner in sitting or squatting or
discharging any of his routine works. Since PW2 admitted
that the petitioner can do his routine works, the question of
petitioner losing his earnings also does not arise.
14. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
learned Tribunal ought to have considered the permanent
partial disability sustained by the petitioner and fractures of left
leg which was operated and nails were inserted and that the
learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner was
admitted in Prashanti Ortho Hospital for five days, wherein
GASA was done on the petitioner.
MGP,J
15. As stated supra, the petitioner failed to establish that he
sustained permanent partial disability. It is also pertinent to
note that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.20,452/- by
considering the discharge bill issued by Prashanti Ortho and
Maternity Hospital. Thus, it can be said that the learned
Tribunal did not lose sight of the fact that the petitioner
undergone treatment is Prashanti Ortho and Maternity Hospital
apart from L.K. Hospital.
16. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned
Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner alleged to have been
working as driver in VRL Transport and earning Rs.10,000/-
per month but he failed to produce any documentary evidence
to establish the same. 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. Considering the nature of injury sustained by the
petitioner and also in view of the oral and documentary evidence
adduced on behalf of petitioner, the learned Tribunal has rightly
awarded Rs.25,000/- towards 'pain and trauma', Rs.15,000/-
towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards 'follow up
treatment'. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
findings arrived by the learned Tribunal so far as the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the above
heads.
18. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the learned Tribunal awarded just and fair
compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner/appellant failed
to establish any of the grounds to interfere with the well
reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal and thus, the
present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 18.02.2025
AS
