Telangana High Court

P.Anjaiah vs Gladstone Lankapalli And 2 Others on 23 January, 2025

     THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                            I.A.No.3 of 2022
                                IN/AND
                       M.A.C.M.A.No.212 OF 2022


COMMON JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.465 of 2016,

dated 25.03.2021, the claim petitioner/injured in the said M.V.O.P.

preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting

aside the order of the learned Tribunal and also filed I.A.No.3 of

2022 requesting to amend the claim amount from Rs.8,00,000/- to

Rs.20,00,000/-

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 claim

petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act,

1989 and Rules 475/1B of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained to him in

a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 05.07.2015. It is stated

by the petitioner/injured that on 05.07.2015 at about 12.30 hours,

when the petitioner/injured-Anjaiah was proceeding by walk

besides Apollo Hospital wall in front of Reliance Fresh, Filmnagar,

a Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595 which was driven by its driver in

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the petitioner

from backside. As a result, the petitioner sustained the following

grievous injuries and fractures viz., (i) Right leg Grade-I compound

fracture, (ii) Fracture of both bone segment, (iii) Grade-III left

fracture, (iv) Head injury, (v) other multiple injuries and fractures

all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner

was shifted to Apollo Hospital for treatment.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Banjara Hills Police Station

registered a case in Crime No.755 of 2015 under Sections 337 and

338 IPC against the driver of Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595.

5. It is stated by the petitioner that due to the said accident, he

is unable to attend his normal work and lost amenities of life and

still taking treatment. Therefore filed claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- against the respondents under

different heads i.e., pain and suffering, loss of amenities and loss of

future earnings etc.

6. Respondent Nos.1 and 3, who are the owner and driver of the

subject Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595, remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including, rash

and negligent driving of the driver of subject Car bearing No.AP-09-

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

CV-1595, income, occupation and disability sustained by the

petitioner and also treatment undergone by him.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the injuries sustained by P.Anjaiah in Motor accident that occurred on 05.07.2015 is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured, in order to

establish his case, examined himself as PW1, got examined PWs 2

& 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 on his behalf. On behalf of

respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no witness was examined,

however, Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was marked with consent.

10. Upon perusing the evidence available on record, both oral

and documentary, the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim

petition filed by the petitioner as he failed to establish his case that

the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of subject Car. Aggrieved by the same, the

petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the

Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

11. Heard Sri B.Somaiah, learned counsel for the

appellant/injured and Sri T.Sanjay K.Singh, learned Standing

Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the

record including the grounds of Appeal.

12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellant/injured

are that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence

available on record and failed to consider the disability and

fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner and failed to award

compensation under different Heads such as, loss of income, extra

nourishment, medical expenses, attendant charges, future medical

treatment and etc. and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by

awarding compensation and filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 seeking to

amend the claim amount from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/-

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,

after considering all the aspects, had rightly dismissed the claim

petition and interference of this Court is not necessary.

14. Now the points that emerges for determination are,

(i). Whether the order passed by the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?

(ii) Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for compensation?

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

POINTS:-

15. As seen from the record, the petitioner/injured, in order to

establish his case, examined himself as PW1 and reiterated the

contents made in the claim petition and deposed about the manner

of accident, fracture injuries sustained to him and treatment

undergone by him. In order to prove the injuries sustained to him,

he got examined PW2-Professor of Orthopaedic AIMSR, Jubilee

Hills, Hyderabad. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner

was admitted in their Hospital with history of RTA on 05.07.2015

in Casualty ward and later admitted into Orthopaedic ward with

the injures of (1) Hadsege mental fracture of right tibia and fibula,

(2) Grade-I Schatzker Type-I Left proximal tibia, (3) Intracapsular

fracture neck of femur, left hip. All the said injuries are grievous in

nature and he also underwent surgery for CC screws left proximal

tibia, Interlocking nailing right tibia and Hemiarthoplasty

(cemented Bipolar) and was discharged on 13.08.2015.

16. During his cross-examination, he deposed that the treatment

given to the petitioner was free of cost and the petitioner/injured

spent amount on medicines, bed charges and investigations. He

also denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained to the

petitioner are simple in nature and also denied the suggestion that

Exs.A3, A4, A6 to A8 are created one.

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

17. PW3-Doctor who signed Disability Certificate as one of the

Medical Board member, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner

came to their Hospital and applied for disability certificate and

upon thoroughly examining the petitioner clinically and physically

by board of Doctors, they issued Ex.A5-Disability Certificate and

he made his signature on it as one of the Medical Board Member.

18. During his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that

the disability in relation to bilateral lower limb impaired reach and

post traumatic sequel limbs do not pertain to whole body. Patient

can perform and discharge his duties of work by manipulating with

fingers, by pulling, pushing, crouching, standing, reading and

writing.

19. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, Ex.A1- FIR

shows that Police of Banjara Hills Police Station, registered a case

in Crime No.755 of 2015 under Section 337 of IPC. Ex.A2 is the

Copy of Memo submitted by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Banjara

Hills Police Station before the court of III Additional Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. Ex.A3 is the outpatient

discharge advise. Ex.A4 is the Discharge summary. Ex.A5 is the

Disability Certificate issued by Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad. Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills worth Rs.25,612/-

Ex.A7 is the bunch of advance receipts for surgery charges worth

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

Rs.29,000/- Ex.A8 are the bunch of diagnostic reports. Ex.A9 are

the X-Ray films.

20. It is pertinent to state that the learned Tribunal, while

answering issue No.1, came to the conclusion that the accident did

not occur due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing No.AP-

09-CV-1595 as there is difference in mentioning the registration

number of the crime vehicle in claim petition and Ex.A1-FIR and

further, the petitioner failed to file charge sheet showing that the

driver of the offending vehicle i.e. AP-09-CV-1595 caused accident.

21. A perusal of Ex.A2-Memo submitted by Sub-Inspector of

Police, Banjara Hills Police Station, clearly discloses that during

the course of investigation, the Police personnel examined the de-

facto complainant and recorded her statement in which she

deposed that due to hurry burry, she mentioned the registration

number of the subject Car as AP-09-CV-1597 instead of AP-09-CV-

1595. Further, the petitioner/injured also deposed in his

statement that the driver of I20 Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595

dashed him due to which he fell down and received injuries to both

his legs.

22. It is pertinent to state that sometimes, it is not possible for

the claimants to file all the relevant documents at the relevant

point of time. Perhaps, that might be the reason the petitioner has

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

filed copy of charge sheet along with a Memo before this Court vide

USR.No.79745.

23. A perusal of charge sheet clearly discloses that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car

bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595 and the petitioner/injured sustained

injuries to his both legs. Hence, it is clear that the vehicle involved

in the accident is crime Car bearing No.AP-09-CV-1595.

24. A perusal of Ex.B1 Insurance policy shows that the policy

was issued in the name of respondent No.1 and was in force as on

the date of accident.

25. It is also pertinent to mention that during pendency of the

Appeal, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.3 of 2022 for amending the

claim amount from Rs.8,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and since it is

settled law that claimants are entitled for just and fair

compensation, this Court deems fit and proper to allow I.A.No.3 of

2022 by amending the claim amount from Rs.8,00,000/- to

Rs.20,00,000/-.

26. Coming to the aspect of awarding compensation, it is

contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner/injured that

the learned Tribunal failed to consider the disability sustained by

the petitioner as per Ex.A5-Disability certificate.

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

27. A perusal of Ex.A5-Disability Certificate issued by the

Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital shows that the

petitioner is suffering from permanent disability in relation to

Bilateral lower limb Impaired reach and Post-Traumatic Sequel of

both Limbs and assessed the percentage of disability @ 68%.

Further, considering the evidence of PWs2 & 3 that the petitioner

had sustained grievous injuries and is suffering with permanent

disability of 68%, this Court deems fit and proper to consider the

disability sustained by him.

28. Though the petitioner contended that he used to earn

Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a Mason, but there is no

documentary proof to that effect. Hence, this Court, by relying

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa

vs. State of Bihar 1, wherein it is held that even though there is no

proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably

estimated by considering the age, avocation and year of accident,

hereby fix the monthly income of the petitioner/injured @

Rs.4,500/- per month and calculate the loss of earnings on

account of the disability as under:-

Loss of earnings= Monthly income x percentage of disability x

relevant multiplier x12

(2001) 8 SCC 197

MGP,J I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

= 4,500/-x 68% x 13 x12

= 4,77,360/-

29. Further, a perusal of Discharge Summary under Ex.A4 issued by

AIMSR General Hospital clearly discloses that the petitioner/injured

was diagnosed with multiple fractures and was operated and advised to

take certain medicines for which the petitioner had spent an amount of

Rs.25,612/- towards medicines as per Ex.A6. This Court considers the

same to be reasonable and is inclined to award the same. Therefore,

the total compensation to which the petitioner/injured is entitled to is

calculated as under:-

Amount S.No. Name of the Head awarded by this Court

1. Loss of earnings due Rs.4,77,360/-

to disability

Medical expenses Rs.25,612/-

                  Pain and suffering      Rs.20,000/-
       3.
                  Extra Nourishment       Rs.5,000/-
       4.

       5.         Transport               Rs.5,000/-

                                          Rs.5,000/-
       6.         Attendant charges


       7.         TOTAL                   Rs.5,37,972/-

                                                                           MGP,J
                                                          I.A.No.3 of 2022 in/and

30. So far as interest is concerned, this Court, by relying upon

the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between Rajesh

and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 is inclined to award interest

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

realization.

31. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.212 of 2022 filed by the

appellant/injured is partly- allowed by awarding compensation of

Rs.5,37,972/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos.1

to 3 jointly and severally and I.A.No.3 of 2022 filed for amendment

of claim amount is allowed. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed

to deposit the awarded compensation within a period of two