Telangana High Court
Shaik Raheem vs Raj Kumar And Another on 20 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.799 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant has filed this appeal against the Order
and Decree dated 15.10.2009 in O.P.No.616 of 2006 passed
by the Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions
Court, Adilabad (for short 'the tribunal') whereunder the
tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.1,45,679/- towards
compensation as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, on
account of the injuries received by him in the accident
occurred on 15.09.2006.
2. Heard Sri Gururam Singh, learned counsel representing
Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and
Sri P.Bhanu Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.2-
Insurance Company and perused the entire material on
record.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 15.09.2006, the appellant was proceeding in a Jeep
bearing No.AP1T-6053, from Chincholi Village towards Nirmal
and when he reached near Vishwanthpet in front of Star
JSR, J
2 MACMA_799_2014
Function Hall, Nirmal on NH-7 road, suddenly one lorry
bearing No.HR-56-E-1362 came in a rash and negligent
manner with high speed and dashed the jeep. As a result, the
appellant received grievous fracture right femur (head injury)
and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the
appellant was shifted to Government Community Health
Centre, Nirmal. Later, the appellant was treated as inpatient
from 15.09.2006 to 16.09.2006. Thereafter, he was admitted
in Shashank Hospital, Nizamabad, wherein he was treated as
inpatient from 16.09.2006 to 30.09.2006. During the period
of treatment, he has undergone several tests, examinations
and C.T.Scan and X-rays were conducted.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
lorry, appellant sustained grievous injuries and the appellant
was treated as inpatient from 15.09.2006 to 16.09.2006 at
Government Community Health Centre, Nirmal and from
16.09.2006 to 30.09.2006 at Shashank Hospital, Nizamabad.
To prove the factum, the appellant examined himself as PW.1
JSR, J
3 MACMA_799_2014
and examined the doctor, who treated him as PW.2 and also
marked Exs.A2 to A14. Inspite of the same, the tribunal
without properly considering the same, awarded meager
amount of Rs.1,45,679/-. He further submits that the
tribunal has not awarded any amount towards fractures.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that the tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded an
amount of Rs.1,45,679/- and the appellant is not entitled for
enhancement of compensation.
6. Analysis of the case:
6.1. This Court considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in
dispute that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of
lorry, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and fractures.
In the evidence of PW.2, he specifically deposed that the
appellant sustained comminuted subtrochanteric fracture,
femur right side and Bi-mallcoia fracture right and he also
stated that the injuries sustained by the appellant are
JSR, J
4 MACMA_799_2014
grievous in nature. Ex.A2, i.e., injury certificate also reveals
that the appellant sustained grievous injuries. Inspite of the
same, the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards
fractures.
6.2. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to grant
Rs.50,000/- towards comminuted subtrochanter fracture and
Rs.50,000/- towards Bi-mallcoia fracture. This Court is of the
considered view that the tribunal has awarded meager
amount of Rs.8,000/- towards extra nourishment and
transportation charges and the appellant is entitled for an
amount of Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment and
transportation charges. In addition to the same, as per the
judgment of the Apex Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi
and another 1, the appellant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, the
appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-
(50,000+50,000+ 25,000+10,000), in addition to the amount
awarded by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant is granted
total compensation amount of Rs.2,80,679/-(Rs.1,35,000+
Rs.1,45,679).
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
JSR, J
5 MACMA_799_2014
7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed,
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal
from Rs.1,45,679/- to Rs.2,80,679/-(Rupees two lakhs eighty
thousand six hundred and seventy nine only). The enhanced
compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition till realization. The enhanced
amount shall be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly
and severally within a period of two (2) months from the date
of receipt of a copy of the judgment. On such deposit,
appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
__________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 20.01.2025
vsl
