Telangana High Court
Thota Prasad vs T.Ramesh And 2 Ors on 20 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.940 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the
order dated 06.03.2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge) at
Khammam (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1212 of
2002, seeking enhancement of compensation by invoking the
provisions of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
2. Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company
and perused the entire material on record.
3. In spite of service of notice, there is no representation
on behalf of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is shown as
died and proforma party.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. On 10.06.2002, while the appellant as a pillion rider on
a motorcycle driven by his friend namely Jupudi Ravi Kumar
was proceeding to Kothagudem from Bhadrachalam, one auto
driven by respondent No.3 came from opposite direction in a
rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle, as
a result of which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries
i.e. fracture of right leg femur bone and right hand.
Immediately, the appellant was shifted to the Government
Hospital, Bhadrachalam for treatment and thereafter, he was
shifted to a Private Nursing Home at Kothagudem for better
treatment. A case in crime No.55 of 2002 for the offence
under Section 337 of IPC was registered in PS., Burgampad,
against respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the auto. He filed claim
petition vide O.P.No.1212 of 2012 claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him.
The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.41,900/- along
with interest @ 7.5% per annum against respondent Nos.1 to
3 jointly and severally.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as on
the date of accident, the appellant was working as cooli and
earning an amount of Rs.100/- per day. As there is no
evidence adduced by the appellant in proof of income, the
Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.1,200/- per
month and calculated the loss of income at Rs.7,200/- for a
period of six months. He further submitted that the appellant
sustained two major fractures which are grievous in nature.
However, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under
the head of fractures.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 contended that the appellant as PW1 in his evidence
specifically deposed that he was working under a Contactor
as on the date of accident and the Contractor was paying
Rs.1,200/- per month towards his salary. He further
submitted that taking into consideration the said deposition
of PW1, the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and reasonable
compensation and the appellant is not entitled for any
enhancement of compensation.
7. Analysis of the case:
7.1. This Court considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and perused the material available on
record. It is an undisputed fact that due to the accident, the
appellant had sustained grievous fracture injuries i.e.
compound fracture of right leg femur bone and right hand. To
establish the said factum, appellant got marked documents
under Ex.A3 to A19. Though the Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the appellant sustained two factures, it has
awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and
suffering but has not awarded any amount under the head of
grievous injuries.
7.2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant is entitled for an amount of
Rs.1,00,000/- to each fracture totaling Rs.2,00,000/- for two
fractures.
7.3. In so far as the claim of appellant regarding loss of
income is concerned, basing on the evidence adduced by the
appellant himself as PW1, the Tribunal has rightly considered
the income at Rs.1,200/- per month and awarded Rs.7,200/-
towards loss of income for a period of six months. Hence, the
appellant is not entitled to claim Rs.3,000/- per month.
7.4. It is pertinent to mention that though the Tribunal
found that the appellant would have taken rest for a period of
six months, it has awarded only an amount of Rs.2,000/-
under the head of extra nourishment. Hence, this Court is
inclined to grant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards extra
nourishment in addition to the above said amount granted by
the Tribunal. 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.2,60,000/- (2,00,000+50,000+10,000) in addition to the
amount awarded by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant
is granted total compensation amount of Rs.3,01,900/-
(Rs.2,60,000+Rs.41,900).
7.5. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed enhancing
the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to the
appellant from Rs.41,900/- to Rs.3,01,900/-(Rupees Three
Lakhs One Thousand Nine Hundred only). 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
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
of receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced compensation
amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date
of claim petition till realization. On such deposit, the
appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount without
furnishing any security. However, the appellant is directed to
deposit the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date : 20.01.2025
gvl
