Telangana High Court
Durgam Rajamallu vs B.Pasha on 18 February, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1402 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - III Additional
District Judge (F.T.C.), Asifabad (in short, the Tribunal), in
O.P.No.782 of 2002, dated 15.09.2006, the petitioner in the said
O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that initially, the petitioner
filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 seeking
compensation of Rs.75,000/- for the injuries sustained by him
in an accident that took place on 04.04.2002. It is stated by the
petitioner that on 04.04.2002 at 10.00 a.m., when the petitioner
along with his friend were proceeding in an Auto bearing
registration No.AP-13U-6584 from Indaram to Srirampur and
when reached near the outskirts of Kundaram Village, another
Auto bearing registration No.AP-1U-4101 came at a high speed
in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto in
MGP,J
which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the petitioner
fell down and sustained fracture injury apart from other
injuries. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation
against the respondent Nos.1 & 2, being the owner and insurer
of the crime Auto bearing No.AP-1U-4101.
4. Respondent No.1/Owner of crime Auto bearing No.AP-1U-
4101 remained ex-parte.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying occurrence of accident and contended that the drivers
of both the vehicles had no valid driving license and permit to
ply the vehicle on road and therefore prayed to dismiss the
claim against it.
6. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-
i. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor
vehicle accident dated 04.04.2002 involving vehicle
No.AP-1-U-4101?
ii. If so, whether the accident took place on account of
fault of the driver of R1?
iii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any
compensation? If so, to what amount and from
whom?
iv. To what relief?
MGP,J
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured examined
himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to
A9 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance
Company, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the
claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.25,500/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the
date of deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly
and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation
awarded, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of the same.
9. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.Surender Reddy,
learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Smt.P.Satya
Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company who appeared through virtual mode.
Perused the record.
10. The contentions of the learned counsel for
Appellant/injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that
the learned Tribunal failed to consider the disability sustained
by the petitioner even after examination of the Doctor who
MGP,J
issued Certificate stating about the fracture injury sustained by
the petitioner. Learned counsel also contended that the
Tribunal erred in granting loss of earnings only for a period of 2
months instead of 6 months and also failed to award amount
incurred towards medical expenses and therefore prayed to
allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent
No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,
after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable
compensation for which interference of this Court is
unwarranted.
12. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
POINT:-
13. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident
and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at
by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there
is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The
only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is
with regard to quantum of compensation.
MGP,J
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that
though the petitioner got examined PW2-Doctor to prove about
the disability sustained by him, but the learned Tribunal did not
consider his evidence.
15. PW2 in his evidence deposed that he treated the petitioner
who was admitted as inpatient in their Hospital from
04.04.2002 to 23.04.2002. He also stated that the petitioner
sustained fracture shaft of right femur and was operated on
10.04.2002 by using kuntsher intrameduliary nail and
sustained permanent partial disability of 30% and advised to
take rest for 6 months and also advised to abstain from doing
hard work for another 6 months. Though PW2 was cross-
examined, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve his
testimony.
16. It is pertinent to state that though PW2 in his evidence
stated that the petitioner sustained 30% disability, but in the
Certificate issued by him under Ex.A5, there is no mention
made with regard to percentage of disability except stating that
the petitioner sustained "fracture shaft of right femur middle
1/3rd". Hence, the learned Tribunal did not consider the
percentage of disability while calculating the compensation.
MGP,J
However, this Court, taking into consideration the fracture
injury sustained by the petitioner, and the opinion expressed by
PW2 that the petitioner had to abstain from doing hard work for
another 6 months, come to a conclusion that the petitioner
would require at least 6 months for recovery of the said injury
and hereby grant loss of earnings for a period of 6 months
instead of 2 months as awarded by Tribunal. It is stated by the
petitioner/injured that he is working as private electrician and
was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, therefore, this Court
considering the same, hereby award an amount of Rs.18,000/-
towards loss of earnings for a period of 6 months.
17. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the
learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards
medical expenses and extra nourishment. A detailed perusal of
medical bills filed under Ex.A5, clearly shows that the
petitioner/injured incurred an amount of Rs.18,059/- towards
medical expenses. Hence, this Court deems fit and proper to to
award the same.
18. Further, the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.500
towards transport expenses Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering
which this Court finds the same to be meager and is inclined to
MGP,J
interfere with the same and hereby enhances the said amounts
as detailed under:-
Amount
S.No. Name of the Awarded by Amount
Head Tribunal awarded by
this Court
Rs.5,000/- Rs.18,000/-
1 Loss of earnings (for 2 months) (6 months)
- Rs.25,000/-
2 Fracture injury
3 Medical Expenses Rs.15,000/- Rs.18,059/-
4 Transport Rs.500/- Rs.1000/-
expenses
5 Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
6 Extra - Rs.1000/-
nourishment
7 TOTAL Rs.25,500/- Rs.73,059/-
COMPENSATION
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.25,500/- to Rs.73,059/-. Except the said finding, the
findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of interest
and liability shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
MGP,J
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.18.02.2025
ysk
