Telangana High Court
Bheemanathi Rajasekhar vs Galenki Ganesh on 23 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1305 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned standing
counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Jagtial (for short
'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2018, dated 10.04.2023.
3. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition on account of the
injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred
on 18.12.2017 while himself and as a pillion rider and his friend
Ananthula Krishna Chaithanya as rider were returning from
Godavarikhani to Raikal on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-02-EB-
4693. When the motorcycle reached Dharmaram at 5 pm,
respondent No.1 who was driving the auto bearing No.P-15-TA-
4333 came in rash and negligent manner in high speed and
swerved the auto without giving signal and thereby, dashed the
motorcycle causing fall of the claimant which resulted in head
injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. As a result of
the injuries sustained in the accident, the claim petition was filed
seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- from the respondents
jointly and severally.
4. The claimant got examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P57 and Exs.C1 to C9 bills. Respondent No.2 got
examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.R1 to R4.
5. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the
Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,16,623/- with interest at
7.5% per annum. The Tribunal foisted the liability only on
respondent No.1 and exonerated respondent No.2. However,
respondent No.2 was directed to pay the compensation and recover
the same from respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the present appeal is preferred.
6. In grounds of appeal, the claimant alleged that he was aged
21 years and sustained head injury, was treated by PW2, a Neuro
Surgeon and he issued injury certificate but said evidence has not
been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Further, the
claimant underwent brain surgery but was awarded with meager
compensation. There is evidence of PW2 that the claimant requires
future surgery which cost Rs.2,00,000/- and there will be need for
use of medicines lifelong to prevent epileptic attacks. There is
significant memory disturbance and therefore, the claimant is
suffering with 100% disability but the same is not compensated.
There is failure to apply multiplier system as the claimant was a
Supervisor under Thums-up dealer. No amounts are granted under
the head of permanent disability.
7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the
claimant argued that the claimant sustained injuries in an accident
while he was working as a Supervisor in Thums-up dealership
company with Rs.10,000/- per month income. Due to the accident,
the claimant sustained left temporal extra dural hematoma and
right fronto temporal subdural hematoma with underlying
contusion. Learned counsel emphasized that this surgery has
caused complete disfiguration of the head and there is defective
functioning in operated portions of the brain and said evidence has
not been taken into consideration while awarding compensation.
8. The claimant was aged 21 years as on the date of accident.
The police record does not reveal the avocation of the claimant
except that he is the son of a Beedi worker. The injury certificate
shows that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries to the
head. The claimant did not produce any evidence about his
avocation as a Supervisor in dealership of Thums-up company.
Except the self serving evidence of PW1, there is no evidence to
support the claim that the claimant was indeed working as a
Supervisor in a dealership of Thums-up company.
9. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and
suffering when the claimant suffered two grievous injuries and the
same needs to be enhanced as per statute by awarding
Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury. Further, an amount of
Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and the same is
enhanced to Rs.15,000/-. The award of Rs.5,96,623/- towards
medical bills is not interfered with.
10. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of
income. There is no evidence as to income. Therefore, the notional
income of the claimant is taken at Rs.7,000/- per month as an
unskilled labourer and Rs.42,000/- is awarded towards loss of
income for six months time that might have been taken for healing
and resuming his normal work.
11. With regard to the alleged disfiguration said to have been
sustained by the claimant, the learned counsel for the claimant
relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and
another 1, wherein, a person who suffered head injury was awarded
with compensation of Rs.1,41,94,333/-. The facts of said case are
not completely applicable to the facts of the present case as injured
in the said case underwent multiple surgeries and was in coma for
a substantial period. In the present case, there is no such issue
about the claimant being in coma or undergoing multiple surgeries.
The claimant underwent one cranial surgery and all the related
medical bills are compensated.
12. The claimant did not produce disability certificate. Therefore,
this Court has no means to ascertain the losses that may be
suffered due to disability on account of head injury. However, on
the basis of evidence of PW2 that the claimant has significant
memory loss and has behavioral disturbance, Rs.5,00,000/- is
awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of future income.
13. As per the evidence of PW2, there is need for future surgery
which may cost up to Rs.2,00,000/- as per Ex.P57 Estimation
certificate for surgery. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to said
amount. Also, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards future medical
expenses as the claimant has to take medicines to prevent Epileptic
2022 LawSuit (SC) 230
attacks in future. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for
Rs.15,03,623/-.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.6,16,623/- to Rs.15,03,623/-, which shall carry interest at 9% per
annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company
shall pay the compensation in the first instance within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and later
recover the same from the respondent No.1. Upon such payment
made, the claim petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 23.07.2025
gvl
