Telangana High Court

Dasoju Shankara Chary vs Oruganti Mahesh And 2 Others on 4 July, 2025

                                  1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.542 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

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

and Decree dated 04.03.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.742 of 2016 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge,

Nalgonda (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

05.04.2016 he boarded an auto bearing No.AP-24X-6176 at

Narkatpally in order to go to Kattangur for his personal work, at

about 10:30 a.m., the said auto reached the outskirts of A.P

Lingotam Village and when the auto got down the service road, the

driver of the auto has driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a

high speed, and suddenly turned the auto towards left side, due to

which the auto turned turtle. As a result of which, the claimant

and other inmates of the auto fell down and sustained grievous

injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to KIMS Hospital, Narkatpelly

and after First Aid, he was admitted in Sai Sanjeevani Hospital,

Hyderabad. The petitioner incurred huge expenditure for his

treatment and thus has sought a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte.

5. Respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of

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

avocation and income of the injured. In addition to that it is

contended that, the owner of the auto has handed it over to a

driver who does not possess a valid driving license and thus, has

violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and that it is not

liable to pay any compensation.

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

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the road accident occurred on 05.04.2016 at about 10:30 a.m., at the outskirts of A.P Lingotam Village of Narketpally Mandal, Nalgonda District, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-24X-6176?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the compensation, if so, from which and to what amount?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 3

and got marked Exs.P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked.

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

compensation of Rs.1,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present

appeal is preferred by the claimant.

ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Smt. S. Annapurana, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned

counsel for respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

petitioner has sustained three simple injuries and one grievous

injury in the accident and that the Tribunal has awarded a very

low compensation. She further argued that the petitioner was aged

50 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month, and that the

Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner to be very low

as Rs.8,000/- and that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability

aspect, though they have adduced evidence of PW2 and produced

disability certificate, proving that the petitioner sustained 40%

disability. She further argued that the loss of earnings is assessed

by the Tribunal for only one month, though the petitioner

sustained grievous injury and has taken four months for recovery

and has therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

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

has submitted that the Doctor/PW2 who was examined before the

Tribunal has admitted all the suggestions posed by the respondent

counsel. Thus, the disability pleaded by the petitioner is not proved

and further has submitted that Ex.A4 is a created document and

that the petitioner has not sustained any disability and therefore,

submitted that no amount need to be awarded for disability. He ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

further submitted that the appeal lacks merits and has prayed to

confirm the Tribunal's order by dismissing the appeal.

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

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:-

a) The case of the appellant is that, he sustained grievous

injuries in the accident and that he incurred huge medical

expenditure, while the Tribunal has granted meagre amount of

compensation. In support of his case, he got examined PW2 and

PW3 before the tribunal.

b) PW3 is a consultant Orthopedic Surgeon of Sai Sanjeevani

Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner was admitted on

08.04.2016 having suffered with road traffic accident. His evidence

reveals that the petitioner was treated as in patient and surgery

was performed on 10.04.2016. He also deposed that their hospital

has issued Ex.A5/Discharge Summary and that the petitioner was

coming for follow up treatment regularly for about three to four

months.

ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

c) PW2/Dr. I. Kameshwar, an Orthopedic Surgeon at

Government Hospital, Nalgonda, has deposed with regard to

disability certificate issued by him being a member of District

Medical Board. In his cross examination, he has admitted that they

have not filled up certain columns in Ex.A4 with regard to the

identification of the applicant and the history, age of injury and the

date of examination of PW1. The nature of disability i.e., whether

temporary or permanent is also not stated.

d) Though a suggestion was given in his cross examination and

admitted by PW3 that that there is no Medico-Legal Certificate

issued in this case, Ex.P2 is the Medico-Legal Case Record dated

05.04.2016. It is elicited from him that the treatment was given

under Aarogya Sree and therefore, the X-rays and reports will be

available in the Aarogya Sree department. Thus, it is elicited from

the evidence on record that discharge summary at Ex.P5 shows

that he was treated at Sai Sanjeevani Hospitals. It is clear from the

evidence of PW3 and Ex.P5 that he was treated under Arogya Shree

Scheme. Hence, naturally the original medical record will be

available in the said department. The disability certificate filed

under Ex.P4 shows that the petitioner has sustained 40%

disability and that it is post traumatic sequel limb.

e) An overall perusal of the evidence of PW2 reveals that the

petitioner has sustained 40% permanent disability due to post ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

traumatic sequel left hip with a restricted movement of hip joint

and shortening of left lower limb. Though the said words do appear

in Ex.A4, during his cross examination, he has admitted that

certain columns are left blank. The said columns are formal in

nature, but as far as the extent and cause of disability is

concerned, he deposed with regard to the 40% disability due to

post traumatic sequel limb and the same is mentioned in Ex.A4.

Ex.P2 is the Medico-Legal Case Record showing that the petitioner

sustained 5 simple injuries and one grievous injury which is a

fracture to left femur. The injuries as elicited from Ex.P2 and the

injuries spoken by PW2 and PW3 and also Ex.P4 have a nexus.

Therefore, the same can be relied upon while awarding

compensation. Keeping in view the medical record filed by the

petitioner and other evidence on record, it is held that the

petitioner must have suffered acute pain and suffering due to the

said injuries during the entire period of recovery. Therefore

Rs.50,000/- is granted under the head pain and suffering.

f) With regard to medical expenses, since it was a free

treatment, no amount has been paid to the hospital. However,

some amount towards incidental expenses cannot be ignored.

Considering the same, an amount of Rs. 50,000/ is awarded under

the head "transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and

other incidental expenses etc.,"

ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

g) The petitioner has stated that he used to work as Carpenter

and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month. Considering the evidence

on record, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the

injured as Rs.8,000/- which appears to be justified. The petitioner

suffered disability, so loss of earnings for one year is awarded i.e.,

Rs.8,000 x 12 = 96,000/-.

h) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar 1, 40% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A8 is scaled down

to 25% with regard to whole body and the loss of earnings is scaled

down to 10%. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Therefore,

after adding future prospects of 10%, monthly income would be

Rs.8,800/- and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.8,800

x12 = 1,05,600 x 10% x 13 which comes up to Rs. 1,37,280/-.

i) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, 50,000/-

shock, Pain and suffering

2. Loss of earnings 96,000/-

3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 1,37,280/-

4. Compensation under the head of 50,000/-

            medical expenses, transport, attendant
            charges, extra-nourishment and other
            incidental expenses
            Total                                             3,33,280/-



o)        Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.3,33,280/- while the Tribunal has

2011 (10 SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

granted Rs.1,04,000/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled

for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the

order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to

the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the

compensation to Rs.3,33,280/- from that of Rs.1,04,000/- that is

awarded by the Tribunal.

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 04.03.2021 in

M.V.O.P.No.742 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,04,000/- to 3,33,280/- and the enhanced

amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest

for the period of delay, if any, 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 ETD,J MACMA No.542_2021

deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw

the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.