Telangana High Court

Uggam Venkateswarlu vs M/S Best Roadways Limited And Another on 4 July, 2025

                                  1


      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.310 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 17.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2018 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge

for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-

cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam (for short "the

Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on

31.12.2016 the petitioner went to Government Hospital,

Khammam along with his villager Arem Laxmaiah and after

dropping him, he was returning to his village on 01.01.2017 at

about 1:00 a.m., when he reached near NTPC Power Grid,

Budidampadu, the lorry bearing No.MH-46H-3477 was parked

negligently in the middle of the road without taking any

precautions and signals in that dark night and the petitioner tried

to avoid the accident, but he hit his auto on rear side of the lorry.

As a result the petitioner sustained fracture injuries, immediately

he was shifted to Government Hospital, Khammam and from there

to Sigma Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. He incurred ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

huge medical expenses and thus, he claimed a compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of

the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,

avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that

the driver of the lorry is an experienced person and that he had

valid driving license as on the date of the accident and prayed to

dismiss the petition.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer has also filed counter denying

the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the

accident, age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further

contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligence of the auto driver i.e., the petitioner herein and that the

lorry driver is not responsible for the accident. It is further

contended that the petition is bad for non joinder of insurer of the

auto. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry did not

have valid driving license as on the date of the accident and thus,

they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on 01.01.2017, due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the lorry bearing No.MG-

46H-3477, as pleaded by the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for claim of compensation?

If so, to what quantum and from which of the respondents?

ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

4. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.1,05,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement

of compensation.

9. Heard Sri K. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

appellant has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and that

the injuries and the treatment underwent by him is proved thourgh

the evidence of PW2, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same.

He further argued that the petitioner sustained disfigurement of

face. Though, it is observed in paragraph No.23 of the Judgment

with regard to the said fact, the Tribunal failed to award any

compensation on that account. He further argued that the Doctor

who treated the petitioner is examined as PW2 and he stated about

the disability sustained by the petitioner, but only the percentage

was not deposed by him and thus, he prayed to consider and

award compensation towards future earnings. He further argued ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

that with all the grievous injuries that are suffered by the

petitioner, he required an attendant to take care of him during the

treatment, thus prayed to award some amount towards attendant

charges and also towards future medical expenses. He therefore,

prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation

by considering the evidence on record. There is no disability

certificate filed by the petitioner and thus, no amount can be

awarded for disability. He further argued that the Tribunal has

awarded amount towards pain and suffering and also

transportation and has considered the evidence in a proper

perspective. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the

Tribunal by dismissing this appeal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) PW1 has asserted that he sustained grievous injuries in the

accident and that he underwent treatment at Government Hospital

and also at Sigma Hospital, Disukhnagar. In support of his case, ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

he has filed Exs.A3 to A5 and A7. Ex.A3 is the Medico-Legal Case

Record issued by the Sigma Hospital. It shows that the petitioner

was examined on 02.01.2017 at 12:00 a.m., and that he sustained

head injury with subdural haemorrhage in an accident. He filed

medical bills under Ex.A4 and supported by prescription under

Ex.A5, which is issued by Karthik Super Speciality Hospital on

28.02.2017. The prescription reveals that the patient approached

the Doctor with a complaint of cough, thus, it is not relevant to the

accident. Another prescription, dated 08.02.2017 reveals that he

approached the Doctor with post-operative complaints and further

he filed some more prescriptions of subsequent periods which do

not have any nexus to that of the injuries sustained in the

accident. Only the prescription dated 08.02.2017 pertains to the

post-operative follow up treatment. Ex.A7 is the Discharge

Summary which discloses that the petitioner underwent treatment

at Sigma Hospital under Aarogya Mithra Scheme and that he

underwent surgery on 02.01.2017 and was admitted as inpatient

on 03.01.2017 and discharged on 21.01.2017 and that he is a

white ration card holder. Therefore, it is elicited that he underwent

free treatment in Sigma Hospital. He further filed few photographs

under Ex.A8 to show the disfigurement of his scalp.

b) The petitioner got examined PW2/Dr. P.Asaadharaan, who

works as a Neuro Surgeon and runs Karthik Super Speciality

Hospital, Khammam. His evidence reveals that the petitioner ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

underwent operation at Sigma Hospital, wherein he underwent

Decompressive, cranicetomy and S.D.H evacuation of subdural

haematoma. He also deposed with regard to certain symptoms of

headache, confusion and giddiness which would arise out of the

said injury. He further deposed that the petitioner has residual

paresis hemopersites i.e., weakness of left upper and lower limbs

and it is permanent disability, but he has not stated about any

percentage of disability.

c) In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has no

knowledge about the previous history of the petitioner and that

giddiness and weakness depends upon the condition of the patient

and he also stated that he cannot say the condition of the patient

after August, 2017 as the recovery depends on the weakness.

Thus, the evidence on record clinchingly shows that the petitioner

underwent free treatment at Sigma Hospital and that he

underwent follow up treatment to Karthik Super Speciality

Hospital. PW2 has deposed with regard to the follow up treatment,

but has not asserted the nature of disability and percentage of

disability. During the said period of treatment, the petitioner must

have undergone some pain and suffering. Keeping the same in

view, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted by the Tribunal towards

pain and suffering, which is opined to be just and reasonable.

d) With regard to medical expenses, he has filed medical bills

under Ex.A4 to an extent of Rs.15,850/-, the same is awarded. In ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

addition to the medical expenses, he must have incurred expenses

towards attendant charges, transportation, extra-nourishment,

incidental expenses etc, therefore an additional amount of

Rs.50,000/- is granted under this head as he underwent follow up

treatment for almost eight months.

e) It is borne out by record that the petitioner is an auto driver

and he stated that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. He has

not filed any RC to show that he is the owner of the vehicle.

However, the accident occurred while he was driving the vehicle

and he has also filed Driving License under Ex.A6 valid from

16.09.2008 to15.09.2028. Therefore on a reasonable hypothesis,

he must have been earning around Rs.8,000/- per month as a

driver.

f) The income as assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of

Rs.8,000/- per month is held to be just and reasonable . A list of

prescription is filed under Ex.A5 and the doctor who has issued

them is examined as PW2. The record discloses that he went for

follow up treatment under PW2 from February to August 2017.

Thus, for over a period of six months, he was under follow up

treatment under PW2. It is elicited from him that he has not seen

the patient since 08.08.2017. The prescriptions also disclose that

from February to August 2017, he was under his treatment for

about a period of six months. Therefore, it is held that the

petitioner might have taken another two months for his recovery ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

and therefore, all together loss of earnings for eight months is

awarded. Thus the loss of earnings comes to (8,000 x 8)

Rs.64,000/-.

g) Though the counsel has argued with regard to the

compensation towards disability and future earnings, no Disability

Certificate is filed and hence, the same cannot be considered.

h) In all the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:-

1. Compensation under the head 50,000/-

'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2. Compensation of loss of earnings 64,000/-

4. Compensation under the head of 65,850/-

           hospital, Medical Expenses, transport,
           extra-nourishment and other incidental
           expenses
           Total                                              1,79,850/-

i)        Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.1,79,850/- while the Tribunal has

granted Rs.1,05,000/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled

for enhancement of compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal

need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation.

This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,79,850/- from

that of Rs.1,05,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 17.03.2020 in

M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Jude for Fast Tracking the Cases

Relating to Atrocities Against Women-cum-VIII Additional District

Judge, Khammam, enhancing the compensation from

Rs.1,05,000/- to 1,79,850/- and the enhanced amount of

compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date

of claim petition till realization. The claimant shall pay the deficit

Court fee. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited.

The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount

with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date

of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if

any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled

to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No

costs.