Telangana High Court

A. Jagadheshwar Reddy vs G. Satish on 20 June, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.511 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed by the appellant/claimant/petitioner under

Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-III Additional District Judge,

(FTC), Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.P.No.180

of 2003, dated 25.09.2006, seeking compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for

the injuries allegedly received by the petitioner in an accident that

occurred on 15.11.2002.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they

are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed

M.V.O.P.No.180 of 2003 under Section 166 (1)(a) and Section 163-A of

the M.V.Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of M.V.Rules 1989 seeking

compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident

alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Lorry.

It is contended that on 15.11.2002, the petitioner along with his friend

were proceeding on his motorcycle from Kambojipeta Village and when

they reached near the outskirts of Kambojipeta village, driver of the

NNR,J

lorry bearing registration No.MH-34-A-2053 came at high speed came in

a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle

from opposite side, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground

and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The

petitioner was taken to Satya Vijay Nursing Home, Mancherial. The

Police registered a case in Crime No.135 of 2002 against the owner of

offending Lorry i.e., respondent No.1.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that due

to accident, the petitioner suffered compound fracture of right hand

middle finger and fracture of 3rd and 4th M.C. joint and injures to other

parts of the body and petitioner was completely bed ridden, for which

petitioner suffered incurred huge expenditure and claimed an amount of

Rs.75,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The

respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, filed a

counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition,

including the manner in which the accident took place, avocation and

income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of offending

vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and

NNR,J

further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and

prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as

under:

i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 15-11-2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.MH34-A-2053 by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom?

iii) To what relief?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into

the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the

Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of

Rs.16,300/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum.

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation

amount awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the

ground that the Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner,

that the petitioner used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month and due to

accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner was idle for about

four months and was unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift

NNR,J

weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that claimants has lost

his future prospects, but the Tribunal without taking into consideration

of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs.16,300/-, which is

meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under

other heads.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute

with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability

on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries:

i) Commented fracture of proximal phalanx of right middle finger.

ii) Other injures all over the body

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that PW2-

Doctor who treated the petitioner deposed before the Tribunal that the

petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 15.11.2002 and discharged

on 22.11.2002 and treated the petitioner's injuries more particularly

right middle finger injury. PW2 also issued the disability certificate

approximately 30% disability to the petitioner. Ex.A8 is hospital bill

issued by PW2, which reveals that the hospital charged bill of

Rs.14,500/- for towards hospitalization.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the

Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads

NNR,J

i.e., pain and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage

to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and

mental agony, however awarded Rs.16,000/- in total, which is meagre

and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by

the Tribunal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has

awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

13. In so far as respondent No.1 is concerned, the appeal was

dismissed for default, before this Court in M.A.C.M.A MP No.3678 of

2011, vide order dated 27.02.2015.

14. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

United India Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on

record.

15. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award

passed by the Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability

of the respondent No.1 and accident. The only point that arose before

this Court in this appeal is that:

NNR,J

i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent?

Point No.1

16. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on

15.11.2002. The petitioner claimed that he was working employee in

S.C.C., and drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, however no salary

certificate is filed by the petitioner to prove that his monthly income is

Rs.8,000/- nor any documentary proof such as bank statement. The

Tribunal has presumed that petitioner might have taken rest for 45 days

due to said accident and estimated 'loss of earning' in total Rs.8,000/-

i.e., at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per month .The Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1, where it is stated that in the

absence of such documentary proof with regard to income of the

petitioner and where there is no proof of income and earnings, the

income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the

ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation is granted by

the Tribunal in so far as assessing the income of the petitioner @

Rs.4,000/- per month, which appear to be meager. This Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner would obviously earn Rs.250/- per day by

working in S.C.C., or by doing any odd job accordingly, the petitioner

1 2001(8) SCC 197

NNR,J

income can be notionally taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. The PW2-

Doctor advised the petitioner to take rest for three months, which

appears to be genuine, since the facture of any wound would take

atleast minimal time to heel. Hence, this Court is opinion that petitioner

is entitled to Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7000 x 3 months) towards loss of earning.

17. As per Ex.A2-wound certificate, shows that petitioner suffered

compound fracture to third finger i.e., fracture of third and fourth

metacarpal joint and the Ex.A7-Medical Certificate-cum-Disability

certificate issued by PW2 stating that of 30% disability of left hand,

however there is no mention in the Ex.A7 as to the disability, whether it

is of permanent in nature or partial and there is no discussion in the

certificate how the doctor came to an conclusion that the petitioner has

suffered 30% disability. Hence, this Court is not inclined to consider the

Ex.A7-Disaability Certificate for assessing the compensation towards

future prospects. The Tribunal granted Rs.4,000/- towards grievous

injury, which appears to be meager and enchanced the same from

Rs.4,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, As far as Ex.A8-Hospital Bills, the petitioner

enclosed bills for an amount of Rs.14,500/-, however, the Tribunal

awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- which appears to be meager and this

Court enhances the said amount from Rs.6,000/- to Rs.14,500/-. The

NNR,J

Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of 'damages to

clothing and articles', admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact

of the accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage,

hence this Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.1,000/- towards

compensation under the head of 'damage to clothing and articles'.

Awarding of Rs.300/- towards transportation charges, this Court do not

interfere with the same.

18. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited

decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table below for easy reference.


                               Amount arrived at by   Amount arrived at by
                  Head            the Tribunal            this Court


          Loss of earning          Rs.6,000/-             Rs.21,000/-

         Transport charges          Rs.300/-               Rs.300/-

            Medical Bills          Rs.6,000/-             Rs.14,500/-

         One Grievous injury       Rs.4,000/-             Rs.30,000/-

        Damages to cloths &               -               Rs.1,000/-
             articles
                Total              Rs.16,300/-            Rs.66,800/-

                                                                           NNR,J

19. As seen from the cause title, the case against respondent No.1 was

dismissed as the petitioner/appellant failed to comply with the

conditional order dated 15.11.2010. However, the dismissal against

respondent No.1/owner is of no consequence for the determination of a

just, fair and reasonable quantum, in view of the judgment of this Court

in Meka Chakra Rao Vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao 2. Hence, respondent

No.2 is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and

recover the same from the respondent No.1.

20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, enhancing the

compensation from Rs.16,300/- to Rs.66,800/- with the interest of

7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till

the date of realisation. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company is