Gandham Gaddam Rajeshwari vs Dumpala Manohar
2025 Latest Caselaw 683 Tel

Telangana High Court

Gandham Gaddam Rajeshwari vs Dumpala Manohar on 31 July, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA


                    M.A.C.M.A.No.1440 OF 2023

JUDGMENT:

-

Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and

Smt. B.L.Prasuna, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the

record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved

by the order, dated 16.08.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.46 of 2019 by

the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge at Jagtial (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein an amount

of Rs.1,06,540/- was awarded against the claim petition filed seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained in

a road traffic accident which occurred on 30.05.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant and her

husband were travelling from Nizamabad to Jagtial on a Hero Glamour

motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-EF-2567 to attend a function and at

about 9:00 hours when they reached Bismilla Mazid Metpalli, an auto

bearing No.TS-16-UA-9993 driven by respondent No.1 came in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle from back side

causing grievous injuries to the appellant and her husband. The

appellant suffered L1 vertebral compression fracture for which she

underwent surgery on 31.05.2017 and was discharged on 05.06.2017

with an advice of complete bed rest for six months. The appellant has

spent Rs.1,55,000/- towards medical expenses and other incidental

expenses. The appellant received an amount of Rs.75,000/- from

CMRF. The appellant was still suffering with pain and unable to work

and therefore, sought compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- from respondent

No.1-driver, respondent No.2-owner and respondent No.3-insurer of

the crime vehicle.

4. In support of the claim petition, the appellant got examined

P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1 to P46. Respondent No.3 got

marked Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy. Upon examining the oral and

documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of

Rs.1,06,540/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the

same, the present appeal is preferred.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant pleaded that the Tribunal

taken her monthly income at Rs.6,000/- instead of Rs.8,000/-. The

appellant also pleaded that she incurred Rs.1,52,999/- towards

medical expenses. The Tribunal also failed to consider the bill for an

amount of Rs.16,300/- for future treatment for facial palsy due to L1

fracture. However, the Tribunal awarded meager compensation of

Rs.1,06,540/-. Hence, she filed the appeal seeking enhancement.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has

not considered the case of the appellant in right perspective and

awarded meager compensation. Learned counsel argued that the

fracture of L1 vertebral resulted in facial palsy for which no disability

certificate is filed, however, prayed that reasonable percentage of

disability be considered as the appellant is facing stigma due to facial

palsy besides difficulty in eating on daily basis.

7. As per the evidence on record, the appellant sustained one

grievous injury of L1 vertebral compression for which she underwent

surgery and was treated as an inpatient. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- is

awarded towards pain and suffering as against Rs.20,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal. The witness P.W.2 deposed that P.W.1 came to him

with a complaint of devastation of mouth towards right side and unable

to close left eye and diagnosed to be having left lower motor neuron

facial palsy. Though no disability certificate is filed, condition of the

appellant - who is unable to eat without discomfort, unable to see with

left eye and experiencing facial disfigurement due to lower motor

neuron facial palsy is considered and a lumpsum amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards disfigurement to face. The

Tribunal awarded Rs.5,540/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, there is no need to interfere

with.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the notional

income of the appellant is taken at Rs.8,000/- per month. As the

appellant lost the salary for six months due to confinement to bed, an

amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x 6) is awarded to the appellant

towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards

extra nourishment and the same need not be interfered with. An

amount of Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded towards disfigurement to face.

Hence, there is no need to award any compensation under the head of

fracture injury. The appellant stated that she received Rs.75,000/-

from CMRF. Hence, the said amount is deducted from the total

compensation (Rs.3,08,540/- - Rs.75,000/-). In total, the appellant is

entitled to Rs.2,33,540/-.

9. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,06,540/- to

Rs.2,33,540/- with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced

compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents

jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is

entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any

security. There shall be no order as to costs.