Telangana High Court

Smt Kanigiri Hema vs B.Venkat Reddy And Another on 19 February, 2025

         HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.820 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.482 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.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her

in a motor vehicle 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 her husband and daughter

were proceeding on Scooter bearing No.AP-22D-825 from

Satyanarayana Swamy 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,

MGP,J

the petitioner, her husband and daughter fell down and

sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the

petitioner was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Narayanpet,

from there to Government Headquarters Hospital,

Mahabubnagar and 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 she underwent

operation of closed reduction and K wire fixation and was bed-

ridden and had to apply leave from 08.08.2007 and lost leave

title and earnings for the said period. Due to the said accident

and injuries sustained by her, she is unable to lift weights with

right hand and became permanently disabled and spent huge

amounts towards medicines and treatment and hence filed

claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.

MGP,J

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

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?


                                                                   MGP,J

7. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured examined

herself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9

on her behalf. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was

adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked

with consent.

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.43,642/- 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. The contentions of learned counsel for the

appellant/injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that

MGP,J

though the petitioner got examined PW2-Orthopedic Surgeon to

prove about the injuries sustained by her, but the learned

Tribunal did not consider his evidence and awarded very meager

amount towards loss of earnings, pain and suffering,

transportation and extra nourishment and failed to award

amount towards attendant charges during the period of

treatment undergone by her in the Hospital. He also contended

that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 12% per

annum instead of 7.5% 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

MGP,J

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

failed to consider his evidence and awarded meager

compensation.

15. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner was

admitted in their Hospital on 24.05.2007 with injuries of

swelling deformity of right wrist and had fracture of lower end of

right radius and was operated on 25.05.2007 and subsequently

discharged on 09.06.2007. He also deposed that the injury

sustained by the petitioner is grievous fracture injury and

assessed 20% disability to her right wrist. Further, Ex.A3-

Treatment Certificate issued by PW2 corroborate with the

evidence of PW2. A perusal of Certificate issued by Mandal

Educational Officer, Nandipet, shows that the petitioner has

been availed OCL on medical grounds from 12.06.2007 to

08.08.2007 i.e, nearly for a period two months for which the

MGP,J

learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards

loss of earnings for the said period. This Court finds the same

to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

16. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the

learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards fracture

injury sustained by the petitioner. Hence, this Court, is

inclined to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the said

fracture injury. Though the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- towards

transport and nourishment, this Court finds the same to be

meager 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.16,000/- -

1         Loss of earnings


                                       -           Rs.25,000/-
2.        Fracture injury

3         Medical Expenses      Rs.7,642/-         -

4         Transport   and Rs.5,000/-               Rs.10,000/-
          Extra-
          nourishment

5         Pain and suffering    Rs.15,000/-        Rs.20,000/-


                                                                   MGP,J





6.        Attendant charges   -                   Rs.5,000/-

7.        TOTAL               Rs.43,642/-         Rs.83,642/-
          COMPENSATION

17. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.43,642/- to Rs.83,642/-. 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.