Telangana High Court
Kanigiri Vijay Kumar vs B.Venkata Reddy And The Oriental ... on 19 February, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.763 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - II Additional
District Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar (in short, the Tribunal),
in M.V.O.P.No.477 of 2008, dated 26.06.2012, 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 the petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by
him in an accident that took place on 24.05.2007. It is stated
by the petitioner that on 24.05.2007 at about 12.15 noon, when
the petitioner along with his wife and daughter were proceeding
on Scooter bearing No.AP-22D-825 from Satyanarayana temple
cross-roads to their house at Sikilgeri, Narayanpet, a Cruiser
bearing No.KA-33-9993 came from Yadgiri side in a rash and
negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the Scooter
of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner, his wife and
MGP,J
daughter fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately
after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government
Hospital, Mahabubnagar, thereafter, shifted to S.V.S.Hospital,
Mahabubnagar and was treated as inpatient from 24.05.2007 to
09.06.2007. It is stated by the petitioner that he sustained Post
traumatic fracture of left leg and other multiple simple and
grievous injuries all over the body and due to the said injuries,
he is unable to walk properly and became permanently
disabled. Hence, filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/- against the respondents.
4. Respondent No.1/Owner of Cruiser bearing No.KA-33-
9993 filed his counter denying the manner of accident and
injuries sustained by the petitioner. He contended that as the
subject Cruiser vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 with
valid insurance policy, therefore, the compensation, if any, is
awarded, respondent No.2 is liable for payment of the same and
hence prayed to dismiss the claim against him.
5. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition including,
manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and
expenses incurred by him and contended that the alleged
MGP,J
accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence on part of
the petitioner and as the owner and insurer of the said Scooter
were not made as parties to the petition, the claim petition is
liable to be dismissed 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 accident occurred on 24.05.2007 at
about 12.15 noon, at Satyanarayana cross roads in
the limits of Narayanpet, was due to rash and
negligent driving of driver of Cruiser bearing No.KA-
33-9993?
ii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was
having valid driving license as on the date and time
of accident?
iii. Whether the insurance policy was in force as on the
date and time of accident?
iv. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation
amount? If so, to what amount and whom?
v. To what relief?
7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured examined
himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to
A10 on his behalf. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence
was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was
marked with consent.
MGP,J
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.80,000/- 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 N.Laxmi Narayana,
learned counsel representing on behalf Smt.J.Sandhya Rani,
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. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the
appellant/injured submitted that the learned Tribunal awarded
very meager amount towards loss of earnings though the
appellant was absented to his duty for 3 months on account of
fracture injury sustained to him. He also contended that the
Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW2, who deposed
MGP,J
about the injuries sustained to the petitioner and failed to
award any amount towards attendant charges.
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.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that
though the petitioner got examined PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon
to prove about the injuries sustained by him, but the Tribunal
MGP,J
failed to consider his evidence and awarded meager
compensation.
15. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner was
admitted in their Hospital for sustaining "injury contusion left
forearm, Laceration on left leg 1 x 2 cms. size, sustained bone
on the dorsum of left feet" and was operated on 25.05.2007 and
was discharged on 09.06.2007. He also stated that the third
injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous in nature and the
petitioner had to take rest for a period of 3 weeks. Though PW2
was cross-examined, nothing adverse was elicited to disbelieve
his testimony.
16. Learned counsel for the petitioner/injured contended that
though the petitioner was absented to his duty for 3 months,
but the learned Tribunal calculated loss of earnings only for a
period of 2 months.
17. In this regard, a bare perusal of evidence of PW2 clearly
discloses that he advised the petitioner/injured to take rest only
for a period of 3 weeks and not for a period of 3 months.
Further, Ex.A7-Salary Certificate of the petitioner issued by
Head Master of Z.P.H.S., Kollampally clearly shows that the
petitioner applied leave for 49 days i.e. from 13.06.2007 to
MGP,J
30.06.2007 and 01.07.2007 to 31.07.2007 and his leave was
sanctioned and salary was paid for the leave period which
means that he had not suffered any loss of earnings during his
leave period. Even then, the learned Tribunal considering the
fracture injury and other injuries sustained by him, on
humanitarian grounds, awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/-
towards loss of earnings for bed rest period which do not require
any further enhancement of same.
18. Since no specific amount is awarded by the Tribunal
towards fracture injury sustained by the petitioner, this Court
finds it desirable to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards
fracture injury sustained by the petitioner and also enhances
the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under the Heads of Pain
and Suffering, Transport and Extra Nourishment as under:-
Amount
S.No. Name of the Awarded by Amount
Head Tribunal awarded by
this Court
Rs.20,000/- -
1 Loss of earnings
- Rs.25,000/-
2. Fracture injury
3 Medical Expenses Rs.40,000/- -
4 Transport and Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Extra-
MGP,J
nourishment
5 Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.20,000/-
6 Attendant charges - Rs.5,000/-
7 TOTAL Rs.80,000/- Rs.1,20,000/-
COMPENSATION
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.80,000/- to Rs.1,20,000/-. 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.
20. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.19.02.2025
ysk
