Telangana High Court
Danthula Vidya Sagar vs M/S Shantha Educational Society And ... on 24 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.355 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri S.Chandraiah, learned counsel for appellant/ petitioner
and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-
insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant
dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad
(for short, 'Tribunal') in MVOP No.354 of 2012, dated 27.08.2014 and
thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. Appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein is
respondent No.1-owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.2 herein is
the respondent No.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For
convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the
Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:
4.1. On 12.08.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., while the petitioner was
crossing the road at Vangapally village, a car bearing registration
No.AP-10-AQ-6678 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle')
proceeding towards Warangal side from Hyderabad came in rash and
LNA,J
negligent manner in high speed and dashed the petitioner, due to
which, the petitioner fell at a distance of 5 meters with blood injuries to
nose, left hand and head. Immediately, he was shifted to Government
Hospital, Bhongir and later shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar for
better treatment.
4.2. The Police, Bhongir Police Station registered a case in Crime
No.169 of 2010 under Section of IPC against the driver of the crime
vehicle.
4.3. The petitioner, rep.by his father, contended that petitioner was
studying V Class and due to the accident, he discontinued the same as
he was not in a position to continue study as his left hand was not
functioning and his family sustained immeasurable damages both
financially and socially and that he spent huge amount for treatment.
4.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and the crime
vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2-insurance company and
sought compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.
5. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-
insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the manner
of occurrence of accident, as put-forth by the petitioner, the age,
LNA,J
avocation and earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 further
contended that the accident was not reported by its insured in collusion
with the petitioner with a view cause great loss to the insurance
company and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident dated 12.08.2010 has
occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of car bearing No.AP-10-AQ-6678 and whether the
petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident ?
2) Whether the crime vehicle No.AP-10-AQ-6678 was
owned by the 1st respondent and insured with 2nd
respondent as on the date of the accident and whether the
petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what
quantum and what is the liability of the respondents ?
3) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner,
P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of
the respondent No.2-insurance company, no witness was examined,
however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of the material and evidence
placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to
the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle and
awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner
LNA,J
payable by the respondent Nos.1 to and 2 jointly and severally with
costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the
date of realization.
9. The learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that the
Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view
of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. He further submitted
that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence and documents
produced by the petitioners; that due to the accident, there was a sharp
hole in the neck suffered at the time of operation, which is a permanent
disability as per the evidence of P.W.6, however, the Tribunal has not
properly considered the disability sustained by the petitioner. He
submitted that Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards
future medical expenses, loss of amenities, future prospects, extra
nourishment and transportation. He further submitted that the Tribunal
erred in awarding meager amounts towards pain and suffering and
mental agony and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
10. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner placed reliance on the
following decisions in support of his contention.
i) Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parhar and others 1;
ii) Govind Yadav vs New India Insurance Co.Ltd., 2
2012 (2) ALD 153 (SC)
LNA,J
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance
company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the
compensation towards injuries sustained by the petitioner and the
grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable and no case is made out
warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award passed
by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration:
12. With regard to the principal contention raised by learned counsel
for petitioner that Tribunal failed to award compensation for permanent
disability suffered by the petitioner and thereby petitioner put to 100%
loss of earning capacity, perusal of the record would disclose that as per
Ex.A6-discharge summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad,
petitioner has suffered a serious head injury, left parietal small EDH
with underlying hemorrhagic contusion, diffuse brain oedema and
injuries to left ear bleed abrasion over left ankle foot and forearm.
13. According to the evidence of P.W.4-Dr.Palvisan, Chief R.M.O., of
Kamineni Hospital, examined on behalf of the petitioner, stated that
petitioner was admitted on 12.08.2010 with history of severe head
injury, left parietal small EDH with underlying hemorrhagic contusion,
(2011) 10 SCC 683
LNA,J
diffuse bran oedema, and was discharged on 25.10.2010. He deposed
that petitioner was treated by the Dr. Dil Nawaz, B.Bhikadvala and
Ex.P6-discharge summary issued by their hospital and the above
injuries are grievous in nature. He deposed that EDH means Extra
Dural Hemorrhage which blood oozing in the brain very serious cause
by neurobreak and the third injury defuse brain oedema means
swelling of brain and the numbness and lean of left side of body may be
due to head injury.
14. P.W.4 further deposed that the above injuries are severe to head
tracheotomy and ventilatory treatment and there is possibility of
occurring fits frequently and frequent medical checkup and continuous
treatment is required for the head injury. He further deposed that
Exs.A8 and A9 i.e., investigation reports issued by their hospital. The
petitioner was referred to Gandhi Hospital, for breathing problem and
the petitioner was treated by Dr.Kiran, ENT and there is possibility of
occurring breathing problems due to ventilatory for the head injuries.
Though he was cross-examined by the insurance company, nothing was
elicited to discard the evidence of P.W.4.
15. According to the evidence of P.W.6-Dr.L.Sudharshan Reddi, ENT
Doctor, Govt.ENT Hospital, Koti, petitioner was admitted in the
hospital on 13.09.2010 with difficulty of breathing and trachestomy was
LNA,J
done on 14.09.2010 and he was treated upto 26.09.2010. He deposed
that trachestomy means opening the windpipe in the neck for breathing
and the petitioner was readmitted on 29.09.2011 for closing trachestomy
wound and discharged on 13.10.2011 and the petitioner requires
physiotherapy for low voice. Exs.P13 & 14 issued by Govt. ENT
hospital. Perusal of Ex.A15-photographs would show that there is a
sharp hole in the neck suffered at the time of operation and there was
an injury to the left hand.
16. From the evidence of the P.Ws.4 and 6 - Doctors, and material
placed on record and as per Ex.A6-discharge summary, petitioner
sustained severe head injury, left parietal small EDH with underlying
hemorrhagic contusion, diffuse brain oedema, which are grievous in
nature, as evident from the evidence of P.W.4-Dr.Palvilson. In the light
of above this discussion, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner
suffered head injury and also have breathing problem and the nature of
injuries are also grievous in nature and further, petitioner has also taken
treatment in various hospitals and spent money for the treatment and
he requires continuous treatment in future, which is evident from the
evidence of P.W.4.
17. However, the Tribunal without considering the injuries sustained
by the petitioner and the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6, declined to award
LNA,J
any amount towards future treatment and medical expenses on the
ground that the Doctor who treated the petitioner was not examined on
behalf of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case and
evidence placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that mere non-
examination of the Doctor, who treated the petitioner, it cannot be said
that petitioner is not sustained grievous injuries and he does not require
future treatment. Though the Doctor, who treated the petitioner was not
examined, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.4 was examined, who is
competent doctor to depose basing on the medical record.
18. Further, during the examination of the petitioner/injured as
P.W.2 before the Tribunal, he was asked to walk in the court hall and on
seeing that the petitioner was walking comfortably, the Tribunal has
observed that walking of the petitioner does not show loss of normal
gait and that he never approached the hospital after 04.09.2010 i.e.,
after discharge from the hospital and came to conclusion that the
contention of the petitioner that he suffered disability has no
application to the facts of the case on hand. However, perusal of the
medical evidence and material placed on record would disclose that the
petitioner sustained severe head injury, left partial small EDH with
underlying hemorrhagic contusion, diffuse brain oedema and breathing
problem, which are internal injuries in nature. The Tribunal could not
LNA,J
have taken the exercise of assessing the disability of the petitioner on
the basis of physical appearance and walking of the petitioner in the
Court hall, which is per se unwarranted and erroneous. Therefore, the
observation of the Tribunal on this aspect is unsustainable.
19. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered
view that petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- toward
future medical expenses.
20. Insofar as other contention of the petitioner that Tribunal has not
awarded any amount towards grievous injuries, it is evident that the
Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. Considering
the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature, this Court
is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded
towards grievous injuries.
21. Insofar as the compensation towards medical treatment, extra
nourishment and attendant charges, the Tribunal has awarded an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in lump sum. As per Ex.P7-medical bills issued
by Kamineni Hospital, petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.94,325/-
towards medical expenses and having regard to the fact that petitioner
underwent treatment as inpatient from 12.08.2010 to 25.10.2010 for the
injuries sustained by him, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/-
LNA,J
towards extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.
Petitioner is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony since he has
suffered physical pain, suffering and trauma and also lost an academic
year and accordingly, impugned award is liable to be modified to the
extent indicated above.
Conclusion:
22. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is
recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Future medical expenses Rs.2,00,000/-
2 Injuries Rs.50,000/-
3 Medical expenses Rs.94,325/-
4 Extra nourishment Rs.15,000/-
5 Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
6 Mental agony Rs.50,000/-
7 Transportation Rs. 5,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.4,24,325/-
23. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is
modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,30,000/- to
LNA,J
Rs.4,24,325/-, which shall carry interest at the rate 7.5% awarded by the
Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization.
The respondents 1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the above
compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner
is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 24.01.2025
kkm
