Telangana High Court
Deepak Kumar Modi vs Mohd.Abdul Razak on 27 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1448 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned standing counsel for respondent
No.3/Insurance Company and perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Chairman, Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1068 of
2018,dated 19.04.2023.
3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The
appellant met with an accident on 31.03.2018 at 18.00 hours when
he was proceeding on his Activa bike bearing No.AP-09-TV-4001
from Basheerbagh to Mata Mandir. When the appellant reached the
Office of Commissioner of Police at Basheerbagh, one Mahendra
Verito car bearing No.TS-07-UC-3425 was driven in rash and
negligent manner by respondent No.1 and thereby, dashed the
Activa bike of the appellant resulting in grievous injuries and
fractures.
4. The learned Tribunal examined the evidence adduced by the
appellant and respondents and awarded compensation of
Rs.19,000/- with interest 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is filed.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A5 original discharge
summary issued by the Apollo hospital, Hyderguda and the oral
evidence of PW2 treated doctor who deposed that the appellant was
admitted under his care through emergency service in Apollo
hospital on 31.03.2018 and was treated on 03.04.2018 by
conducting surgery for open reduction and internal fixation using
plates and screws. PW2 further deposed that the appellant needs
follow up surgery for removal of implants. Said oral evidence of
PW2 and Ex.A5 are not taken into consideration. As per Ex.A6, the
appellant paid an amount of Rs.2,20,790/- and the same is
deposed by the Billing In-charge of Apollo hospital, Hyderguda. The
learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW3 on the
ground that as per injury certificate, the appellant sustained
only simple injuries and the charge sheet is filed under section
337 of IPC.
6. A perusal of the record shows that the witness PW2 i.e.
Dr. Hari Sharma, Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Apollo
hospital, Hyderguda who was working since May, 2011 at Apollo
hospital, Hyderguda has deposed that the appellant was treated
under his care having admitted through emergency services of the
hospital on 31.03.2018. The appellant sustained injuries in a road
traffic accident on 31.03.2018 at 6.00 pm at Basheerbagh,
Hyderabad. PW2 further deposed that the appellant underwent
surgery on 03.04.2018 for open reduction and internal fixation
using plates and screws. When the appellant was normal and in
stable condition, he was discharged on 06.04.2018. PW2 also
deposed that the appellant requires future surgery which may cost
approximately Rs.1,00,000/- Ex.A5 discharge summary is issued
by Apollo hospital.
7. Coming to the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal
relied upon Ex.A2, injury certificate issued by Apollo hospital which
shows that the appellant when he was admitted had tenderness
and pain over left thigh and deformation over proximal aspect of
left leg with tenderness and swelling. Whereas, the discharge
summary/Ex.A5 issued by the same Apollo hospital shows that
the appellant sustained fracture of Tibia orif, was admitted
on 31.03.2018 and was discharged on 06.04.2018 and that surgery
was conducted on the appellant for fracture of Tibia on 03.04.2018.
8. When confronted with two different documents, one
document shows simple injuries and the other document shows
grievous injuries such as fracture of Tibia clarification is to be given
by the treated doctor. The treated doctor PW2 has categorically
deposed that the appellant sustained fracture in a road traffic
accident. The date of accident, treatment period and the evidence
of the treated doctor clearly go to show that the appellant sustained
grievous injury. The entries made by either the doctor or the staff of
casualty ward of the hospital without conducting further
examination need not be a ground for denying just compensation to
the appellant irrespective of the fact that Ex.A2 shows that simple
injuries. The discharge summary/Ex.A5 and the oral evidence of
PW2 inspire confidence that the appellant sustained grievous injury
in the accident. Normally, fractures without external injury show
tenderness or swelling only and when X-ray is taken, the fractures
are revealed. Sometimes, hairline fracture cannot be detected
unless X-ray is taken. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel
for respondent No.3 that the appellant sustained only simple
injuries and reasonable amount is awarded is not sustainable in
face of creditable evidence adduced by the appellant through PW2/
Dr. Hari Sharma and Ex.A5/discharge summary.
9. In the circumstances, on the basis of oral evidence of PW2
and Ex.A5, it is proven that the appellant sustained grievous
injury. As such, entitled to compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards simple injury, Rs.5,000/-
towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment
and entitled to payment of the final bill under Ex.A6 at
Rs.2,20,790/-.
10. As per Ex.A3 charge sheet, the appellant was aged 53 years
and was doing own business. In the absence of lack of evidence,
the notional income of the appellant is taken to be Rs.12,000/- per
month as he was self-employed and an amount of Rs.60,000/- is
awarded towards loss of earnings for five (5) months of time that
might have been taken for healing of the fracture and resuming
normal work. In addition, the appellant is awarded an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards future surgery required for removal of
implants. Thus, the appellant is entitled for total compensation of
Rs.3,80,790/-.
11. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1,
inclined to increase the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation amount from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.19,000/- to
Rs.3,80,790/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 shall
deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is entitled
to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:27.06.2025
gvl
2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
27th June, 2025
gvl
