Telangana High Court
Abdul Junaid vs Murki Thirupathi on 20 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA
M.A.C.M.A.No.70 of 2020
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Award and
decree dated 03.01.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2016 by the
Chairman, Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional
District Judge, Adilabad, (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the
petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.03.2016.
2. The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant filed
M.V.O.P.No.334 of 2016 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988
seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle
accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by
the Tata Magic Auto . It is contended that on 22.03.2016, the petitioner
while proceeding in Tata Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649 from
Mancherial towards Kagaznagar and when he reached near Vinay
Garden, the driver of Tata Magic Auto all of sudden drove the said Auto
in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to Hero HF
Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 from opposite direction due to
which the petitioner sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the
NNR,J
body. The petitioner was taken to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T and
thereafter shifted to Ranee Hospital, Karminagar for better treatment.
The Police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2016 and filed charge
sheet under Section 304-A and 338 IPC against the driver of the
offending Tata Magic Auto.
3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was
that due to accident, the petitioner sustained i) commuted Fracture
lateral condoyle of Eaptullum of hummers with unstable dislocation of
left elbow, ii) MCL rupture of elbow fracture of left elbow, iii) 2nd, 3rd and
4th carpmetacarpal fracture dislocation of left hand, iv) bennets fracture
of left hand v) compartment syndrome left hand, vi) Pin palsy and other
injuries and also underwent surgical operations for which the petitioner
had incurred an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards hospital and medical
expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads
as compensation for the said accident.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondents No.1, 2 driver and
owner of offending auto rickshaw bearing No. AP-01-TV-3649 and
respondent No.4 owner of Hero HF Delux motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-
AF-7655 remained ex-parte. The respondent Nos.3 & 5 - HDFC Ergo
General Insurance Company and New India Assurance Company filed
NNR,J
their counter-affidavits, denying all the averments made in the claim
petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age,
avocation and income of the petitioner and and further contended that
the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to
dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the
counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads
as under:
"i) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on 22.03.2016
while the petitioner along with other persons were proceeding in TATA Magic
Auto bearing No.AP01-TV-3649 from Mancherial towards Kaghaznagar and at
about 19:00 hours when they reached near Vinay Garden outskirts of
Kaghaznagar, all of sudden the driver of TATA Magic Auto/respondent No.1
drove it in high speed in rash, careless and negligent manner and dashed
Hero HF Delux Motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 from opposite direction
due to which, the petitioner sustained severe injuries, or whether there was
any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries? If so, whether it leads to disability
as alleged?
3. Whether the TATA Magic Auto bearing No.AP-01-TV-3649 of R1 and the
Hero HF Delux motorcycle bearing No.AP-01-AF-7655 of R4 were stood insured
with respondent No.3 and 5/Insurance Companies respectively? And if so,
does the policies cover the risk of petitioner and if so, was there any breach of
policy conditions by the owners/respondent Nos.2 & 4 respectively?
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, what is the
quantum and against whom?
5. To what relief?"
6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into
the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the
NNR,J
learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of
Rs.1,10,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.
7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on
the ground among other grounds that the learned Tribunal having held
that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the Auto, however not granted just compensation amount as
claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner examined PW.1 and filed
documents marked as Ex.A1 to A22 and proved that he has received
grievous injuries due to the accident.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that
petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 23 years and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month as Software Engineer as on the date of accident.
The petitioner was admitted in Renee Hospital and he was discharged
from the said hospital on 30.03.2016 with an advice to take complete
bed rest. Learned counsel further argued that petitioner was unable to
do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and
also contended that petitioner has suffered permanent disability, but
the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects
NNR,J
has awarded an amount of Rs.1,10,000/-, which is meager and not
awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended there is no
dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and
liability on the respondents. Ex.A8- Discharge Summary and Ex.10-
Orignal Essential Certificate issued by Renee Hospital, Karimnagar
clearly shows that petitioner sustained the following injuries:
i) commuted Fracture lateral condoyle of Eaptullum of hummers with
unstable dislocation of left elbow;
ii) MCL rupture of elbow fracture of left elbow;
iii) 2nd, 3rd and 4th carpmetacarpal fracture dislocation of left hand,
iv) Bennets fracture of left hand;
v) Compartment syndrome left hand;
vi) Pin palsy and other injuries.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.15,000/- towards loss of
earning, but the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/-
and also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain
and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to
clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental
agony, and awarded Rs.1,10,000/- in total, which is meagre and prays
this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the
learned Tribunal.
NNR,J
11. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after
considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal
has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.
12. Heard Sri L.Sainath Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri
S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kota
Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the material
on record.
13. Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the
Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute
regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident.
The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so,
to what extent?
Point No.1
14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident caused on
22.03.2016. At paragraph No.16 of the Tribunal order, petitioner
claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards 'loss of earning' which appear
to be fair and reasonable and the Tribunal granted the same, which
needs no interference by this Court. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/-
under the head of 'Transportation', which looks meager, as the
petitioner had travelled to Karimnagar from Adilabad for better
NNR,J
treatment, as the petitioner might have incurred expenditure more than
what claimed as the petitioner might have engaged auto or car for going
to the hospital at Karimnagar, in such circumstances, this Court is of
the opinion that the compensation under head 'transportation' has to be
enhance and the same is enhanced from Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/-.
15. As per exhibit Ex.A.10- Original Essential certificate issued by
Renee Hospital, Karimnagar, which shows that the petitioner has
incurred Rs.81,630/- towards medical expenditure, but the Tribunal
has not granted full expenditure because petitioner has not examined
the Doctor, who treated him or the author of bills, inpatient bills and
other medical bills and awarded Rs.50,000/- by the Tribunal under the
'head of medical expenditure, extra nourishment, tonics and private
attendant', but looking the records, it shows that the petitioner was
admitted in the Rennee Hospital, which is not disputed by either of the
parties and the Discharge Summary, Emergency Certificate, Essentially
Certificate and IP Bills and other medical bills issued by Renee Hospital,
which clearly shows that petitioner has taken the medicines which was
prescribed by the Renee Hospital where he was admitted, hence, the
Tribunal ought to have considered the medical bills and granted just
compensation under the head 'medical expenditure'. Accordingly, this
NNR,J
Court opines that it would be appropriate to grant Rs.81,630/- towards
compensation under the head of 'medical expenditure, extra
nourishment, tonics and private attendant'.
16. As per exhibits Ex.A3-Injury Certificate, petitioner suffered six
injuries, as mentioned in the paragraph No.9 of this order, the Tribunal
had granted Rs.25,000/- under the head 'pain and sufferance' which
appears to be meager for six injuries. This Court enhance the
compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- in all to Rs.10,000/- per injury
i.e., Rs.60,000/- in all under the head 'pain and sufferance'.
17. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.75,000/- under the head of
permanent disability and future medical expenditure but the petitioner
has not filed any disability certificate, however the Tribunal granted
Rs.25,000/- under the head of disability. In the absence of any disability
certificate, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation
already granted by the Tribunal under the head of 'permanent
disability', hence no interference required.
18. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of
compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the
table below for easy reference.
NNR,J
Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by
Head the Tribunal this Court
Loss of earning Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Transportation Charges Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Medical Bills Rs.50,000/- Rs.81,630/-
Simple Injury Rs.25,000/- Rs.60,000/-
Fracture Injury Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
(Permanent Disability)
Total Rs.1,10,000/- Rs.1,81,630/-
19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.1,81,630/- (Rupees One Lakh
Eight One Thousand and Six Hundred and Thirty Rupees Only) with
the interest of 7.5% on the enhanced amount of compensation from
the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are
directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest
after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a
period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without
furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
20.06.2025
SHA
