Telangana High Court
Kadam Digamber vs Abdul Khadar And Another on 9 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1761 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
The appellant has filed this appeal against the Order
and Decree dated 27.11.2013 in O.P.No.997 of 2008 passed
by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal
(VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad, (for short "the
tribunal") whereunder the tribunal has granted an amount of
Rs.40,000/- towards compensation as against the claim of
Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the injuries received by him in
the accident occurred on 01.03.2008.
2. Heard Smt K.V.Rajasree, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri K.Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for
respondent No.2-Insurance Company and perused the entire
material on record.
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 01.03.2008, the appellant was travelling as pillion
rider on motor cycle bearing No.AP-01-7318 from Mategaon
towards Bhainsa side and one Kadam Babu Rao was driving
the motor cycle on side of the road very slowly and cautiously.
JSR, J
2 MACMA_1761_2014
When they reached near spinning mill at Bhainsa of Adilabad
District, one tractor bearing No.AP-01-T-3133 was parked on
the middle of the road with mechanical defect without parking
lights, signals and precautions, due to which the rider of the
motor cycle could not watch the tractor and dashed against
the tractor from behind, due to which the appellant and
another person fell down and the appellant sustained head
injury, skull fracture, frontal bone fracture, both hands
injury, both legs injury, chest ribs fracture and also received
injuries to other parts of the body. Immediately, the appellant
was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhainsa and thereafter
he was referred to Government Hqrs Hospital, Nizamabad,
but the appellant was admitted in Sai Accident Hospital,
Nanded, where he was operated and still he is taking
treatment in private hospitals.
4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:
4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant sustained grievous injuries due to negligence of
driver of tractor for parking the tractor on the middle of the
road. To prove the same, appellant examined himself as PW.1
JSR, J
3 MACMA_1761_2014
and marked Exs.A1 to A8. However, the tribunal without
properly considering the oral and documentary evidence on
record held that the accident occurred due to rash negligent
driving of rider of motor cycle and the appellant is not entitled
to seek compensation against respondent No.2. However, the
tribunal awarded meager amount of Rs.40,000/- against the
owner of respondent No.1.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent
No.2:
5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 submits that the tribunal has rightly dismissed O.P.
against respondent No.2 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 the appellant sustained grievous injuries and
minor injuries in the accident and to prove the same, he filed
Exs.A3, A4 and A7 i.e., certified copy of injury certificate, CT
Scans of brain report and X-ray film. After perusal of Exs.A1
JSR, J
4 MACMA_1761_2014
and A2 i.e., certified copies of FIR and charge sheet, it reveals
that the accident occurred on 01.03.2008, when the appellant
reached near spinning mill at Bhainsa, as respondent No.1
vehicle was parked on the middle of the road and due to the
same, the rider of motor cycle could not watch the tractor and
dashed against the tractor, as a result, the appellant
sustained grievous injuries. The tribunal without taking into
consideration of the investigation report/charge sheet held
that the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of motor
cycle and the same is contrary to Exs.A1 and A2. Hence, this
Court is of the considered view that the impugned award
passed by the tribunal in dismissing the O.P. against the
respondent No.2 is liable to be set aside and accordingly set
aside. Insofar as the claim of the appellant is concerned, the
appellant sustained one grievous injury and minor injuries.
However, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.20,000/- towards
fracture and simple injuries, including pain and suffering.
6.2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered
view that the appellant is entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards
fractures, simple injuries and pain and suffering and
JSR, J
5 MACMA_1761_2014
Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges. 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.70,000/-
(50,000+10,000+10,000) in addition to the amount awarded
by the tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant is granted total
compensation amount of Rs.1,10,000/-(Rs.70,000+
Rs.40,000).
7. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed, enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal from
Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,10,000/-(Rupees one lakh ten thousand
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.
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
JSR, J
6 MACMA_1761_2014
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
___________________
J. SREENIVAS RAO, J
Date: 09.01.2025
vsl
