Telangana High Court

Y. Nageswara Rao vs Mr. Pradeep Gollapalli on 20 February, 2025

                                   1




        THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                       M.A.C.M.A.NO.127 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the

Order and Decree dated 03.09.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1815 of

2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal") granting a compensation of Rs.8,90,000/-.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief averments of the petitioner before the trial Court

were that on 09.04.2015, the petitioner was proceeding on his

bicycle from Barampet towards Palnadu road, Narsaraopet through

bye-pass road and at about 12:40 hours, when he reached near

Ganesh Temple and while he was crossing the road, in the mean

time, one lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-0479 proceeding from

Narsaraopet towards Sattenapally came in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the

petitioner fell down from the bicycle and sustained fracture on his

left leg and that he was immediately shifted to M/s.Amulya

Nursing Home, Narsaraopet, he has undergone treatment for a ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

period of 40 days in the said hospital and from there, he was

shifted to Manipal Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment.

4. It is his further case that he has undergone five surgeries

and has spent more than Rs.6,18,000/- towards inpatient bill and

more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical bills and that he has

sustained 67% disability. It is his case that he was aged 47 years

as on the date of accident and was working as a Supplier in

M/s.Siva Priya Bar and Restaurant and was earning an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month and that he engaged an attendant by

paying Rs.5,000/- per month and that he lost his future prospects

and earnings and therefore, has prayed to grant a compensation of

Rs.20,00,000/- together with interest @ 12% from the date of filing

the petition till the date of realization.

5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 who were the driver and owner

of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

6. The Respondent No.3 i.e., Insurance Company filed counter

denying all the allegations. It is further contended by respondent

No.3 that the driver was not having valid driving license at the time

of alleged accident and that there was violation of the provisions of

M.V Act.

ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

7. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

"1. Whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner Y. Nageshwar Rao S/o Koteswar Rao, in motor accident occurred on 09.04.2015 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle Lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-0479 ?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation if so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief ?"

8. Before the trial Court, the petitioner got examined himself as

PW1 and examined PWs 2 to 6 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On

behalf of the respondent No.3, Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was marked

with consent and there was no oral evidence.

9. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the trial Court has

granted a compensation of Rs.8,90,000/- with proportionate costs

and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization.

10. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has filed the

present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

11. Heard Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri P. Harinath, the learned counsel for the

respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and that the

petitioner has sustained 67% of disability and was earning

Rs.11,000/- per month prior to the accident, but the Tribunal has

granted Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings. He further

submitted that the Nowkarnama filed under Ex.A15 and the Salary

Certificate filed under Ex.A14 are not considered by the Tribunal in

assessing the income of the deceased. He further submitted that

even the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner were proved

through the evidence of the Doctor and the Chief Medical Officer,

but the same was not considered by the Tribunal. He therefore,

prayed to set aside the Award of the Tribunal and enhance the

compensation, by allowing this Appeal.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand,

has argued that the compensation in case of disability was rightly

calculated by the Tribunal and that there is no clinching evidence

adduced by the petitioner to prove that he worked as a cashier. He

further submitted that the Tribunal was fair enough in not

considering the medical bills pertaining to the period after

discharge from the hospital, therefore prayed to uphold the order

and decree passed by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

14. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise

for determination in this Appeal are as follows:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for ?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ?

3. To what relief ?

15. Point No.1:

a) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous

injuries i.e., the fracture of his leg and that he was hospitalized

and suffered a lot for more than three months. A perusal of

Ex.A4/the Wound Certificate issued by Amulya Nursing Home,

Narsaraopet reveals that he sustained fracture of left tibia which is

a grievous injury. ExA5 is the discharge summary issued by

Amulya Nursing Home which discloses that he was admitted on

09.04.2015 and was discharged on 17.04.2015 and that he was

treated for Supra condoyle fracture in left tibia and surgery plating

was done. He filed bills under Ex.A6 issued by Amulya Narsing

Home disclosing the total amount of Rs.61,781/-. Ex.A10 is the

discharge summary of Manipal Hospital which discloses that the

petitioner was admitted on 21.05.2015 with a complaint of wound

infection and was discharged on 08.07.2015. It is further

disclosed from the said exhibit that he was treated with;

Debridement of necrotic soft tissue and external fixation for ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

fracture right lower limb done under SA on 22.05.2015.

Debridement of necrotic quadrisepsis tendon patella and tibialis

tendon done under SA on 02.06.2015 and further he was advised

certain medication after discharge and was supposed to come for

review. Ex.A11 is the bill to a tune of Rs.5,78,645/- issued by

Manipal Hospital.

b) To prove these bills and the medical treatment, the petitioner

has examined PWs3, 4 and 5. PW5 is the Doctor who runs Amulya

Nursing Home, he deposed that their hospital has issued Exs.A5

and A6 i.e., Discharge Summary and the Hospital Bill. It is also

proved through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that the petitioner

underwent treatment at Manipal Hospital and that their hospital

has issued Exs.A10 and A11 i.e., Discharge Summary and the

Medical Bill. Therefore, the evidence towards medical bills under

Ex.A6 and A11 are held to be proved.

c) It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he also underwent

treatment in M/s Susmitha Ortho Trauma Care Centre and he has

filed Exs.A7 to A9. Ex.A7 is the Discharge Summary issued by the

Susmitha Trauma Centre which discloses that the petitioner was

admitted on 09.07.2015 and discharged on 10.07.2015, but the

bottom most line in Ex.A7 shows that implant removal-external

fixation was done on 12.08.2015. Further, Exs.A8 and A9 are the ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

bills, dated 10.07.2015 supposed to have been issued by Susmitha

Trauma Centre to a tune of Rs.24,342/- and Rs.21,000/-

respectively. Moreover, when the petitioner was inpatient only for

two days i.e., 09.07.2015 and 10.07.2015, how the surgery was

conducted on 12.08.2015 remains to be an un-answered question

and it creates a suspicion over the documents filed under Exs.A7

to A9. Therefore, the said bills are not taken into consideration.

d) The petitioner has stated to have been working in M/s.Shiva

Priya Bar and Restaurant as a cashier. The documents filed by

him are under Exs.A14 and 15. He has also examined PW7-

Proprietor of Shiva Priya Restaurant and Bar and his evidence

reveals that the petitioner worked under them since 2004 and was

paid a salary of Rs.11,000/- per month and that he has issued

Ex.A14. He further stated that ever since the petitioner met with

the accident, he has not attended to duties, and also that Ex.A15

shows the employment of the petitioner since 17.09.2011. A

perusal of Ex.A15-Nowkarnama dated 17.09.2011 reveals that it is

issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise

Department, Narsaraopet, and that the petitioner is the authorised

agent/servant of Shivapriya Bar. Ex.A14 is the Salary Certificate

issued by PW7 disclosing that he used to earn Rs.11,000/- per

month and it is issued on 29.05.2017 and that the petitioner used ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

to work in the said Bar since 2004 for a monthly salary of

Rs.11,000/-. The accident occurred in 2015. Ex.A15 is issued in

the year 2011, while Ex.A14 portrays that the petitioner used to

work since 2004. It is not known whether the petitioner was an

authorised agent since 2004 and continued to work as such till

2015. Through the said exhibits, the petitioner tried to place

evidence on record that he used to work in Shivapriya Bar and

earn Rs.11,000/- per month as on the date of accident. The

Exs.A14 and A15 do not win much confidence of this Court. But it

is borne out by record that petitioner was an able bodied person

prior to the accident and was aged 48 years. Therefore, this Court

holds that Rs.7,000/- per month can be awarded on a reasonable

hypothesis. It is the common knowledge that without a reasonable

physical fitness, one cannot attend to his/her normal work. In the

light of the evidence in regard to the injuries sustained by the

petitioner and the treatment received by him and also taking into

consideration the time required for the injuries to heal, it is

reasonable to accept that he was out of work for at-least about six

months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.42,000/- (7,000 x 6) is awarded

as compensation towards loss of earnings.

e) The petitioner underwent traumatic accident and sustained

a fracture of left tibia. He was hospitalized for about three months, ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

which itself causes much pain and suffering to the petitioner.

Initially the petitioner was admitted in Amulya Nursing Home for

eight days i.e., from 09.04.2015 to 17.04.2015, but he was again

admitted into Manipal Hospital on 21.05.2015 with a complaint of

wound infection, wherein he underwent treatment for about two

months i.e., 08.07.2015. He was suggested to go for review after

discharge as it is disclosed by the discharge summary under

Ex.A10. Therefore, considering the nature of injury sustained by

the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him, it is opined

that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is to be awarded under the

heads of pain and suffering.

f) The loss of future earnings has to be awarded to the

petitioner in view of the disability sustained by him. The disability

as assessed by the Medical Board is 67%. It is proved by the

evidence of PW2. A perusal of Ex.A13/the disability certificate

reveals that the disability sustained by the petitioner is in relation

to his left lower limb, impaired reach. Keeping in view, the dicta

laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another 1, the

disability in relation to whole body is scaled down to 25%. The loss

of earnings is also assessed as 25% by the Tribunal, the same is

upheld by this Court. However, there is an error with regard to the

2011 (1) SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

multiplier taken by the trial Court. The petitioner is aged 50 years

as on 30.06.2017 as disclosed by the disability certificate under

Ex.A13, that means, he must have been 48 years old in the year

2015. Considering the said aspect as laid down by the Apex Court

in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 the multiplier

that has to be applied for his age is "13" while the trial Court has

taken it as "12". Therefore, the loss of future earnings would be

the annual earning x 25x multiplier = 84,000 x 13 x 25/100 =

2,73,000/-.

g) With regard to the medical expenses, it is already held in the

preceding paragraphs that the petitioner could prove the medical

bills of Rs.5,78,645/- and 61,781/- which comes to a total of

Rs.6,40,426/-. In addition to that the petitioner must have

sustained expenses towards extra nourishment, Transport,

Attendant and Incidental Expenditure. Therefore, an amount of

Rs.30,000/- is awarded to meet the said expenses.

h) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

SI. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court No. Rs.

1. Compensation under the head 1,00,000/-

'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

2. Compensation of loss of earnings 42,000/-

(past six months)

3. Loss of future earnings due to 2,73,000/-

disability

4. Compensation under the head of 6,70,426/-

           hospital, Medical Expenses,
           transport, extra-nourishment
           Total                                                10,85,426/-
           Rounded up to                                        10,85,500/-

i)        Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.10,85,500/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.8,90,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is

entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is

answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.2:

It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal

need interference with regard to the quantum of compensation.

This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.10,85,500/-

from that of Rs.8,90,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

17. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed, modifying the order dated 03.09.2020 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1815 of 2016 by the Chairman-Motor Vehicles

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City

Civil Courts, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from

Rs.8,90,000/- to 10,85,500/- and the enhanced amount of ETD,J MACMA No.127_2021

compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period

of delay is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to

deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On

such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount

without furnishing any security.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.


                                   _________________________________
                                   JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

Date:    .02.2025
ds
                                                       ETD,J
                                         MACMA No.127_2021