Telangana High Court

Jadav Prema , Pramila Bai vs B. Rajalungu And Another on 27 June, 2025

                                 1

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.776 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 11.05.2018 in M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2011 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

16.03.2011 at about 1:00 p.m., the petitioner along with others

was going by an auto bearing No.AP01X-2815 from Echoda to

Srichelma to attend Jathara, when the auto reached near

Sirchelma Ghat Section, the driver of the auto had driven it at a

high speed in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the auto

turned turtle, as a result of which the petitioner and other inmates

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately the petitioner was taken

to Government Hospital, RIMS, Adilabad, where she underwent

inpatient treatment from 16.03.2011 to 17.03.2011 and from there

she underwent treatment under Dr.Tippeswamy at Akhil

Orthopedic Hospital, Adilabad. It is her case that she incurred

huge medical expenses and thus, claimed a compensation of

Rs.75,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.776_2021

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of

the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,

avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that

the petitioner could be gratituous passenger in the auto and that

the auto driver was not holding a valid driving license as on the

date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay

any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries in a motor accident taken place on 16.03.2011 due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of R1's Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP01-X-2815 if so, what is the nature of injuries or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner who was proceeding in the said auto?

2. Whether the petitioner suffered any disability as alleged?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation if so, to what extent and against whom?

4. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A8. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was

examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the

present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement

of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.776_2021

9. Heard Sri N. Srushman Reddy, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for

respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded meagre compensation and that they could

prove that the injured is a 12 year old girl who suffered grievous

injuries in the accident and she lost one Academic Year, as a

result of the accident. He further submitted that they have placed

all the evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the treatment

underwent by the petitioner, but the Tribunal failed to consider the

same and has granted very low amount of compensation. He

therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has submitted that the petitioners have not filed any medical bills

and that the Tribunal has granted very reasonable compensation

for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed to

uphold the award passed by the Tribunal.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for consideration:-

1. Whether claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

ETD,J MACMA No.776_2021

13. Point No.1:-

a) The appellant's contention is that the Tribunal has awarded

very low amount of compensation and that the petitioner is a

minor who sustained grievous injuries in the accident. In support

of his case, the Injury Certificate is filed by PW1/father of injured

under Ex.A3, it is issued by the Duty Medical Officer at

Government Hospital, which discloses that the petitioner who is 12

year old has sustained laceration on right dorsum of hand and

longitudinal fracture of V Metacarpal adjacent soft tissue oedema

which are grievous in nature. She has also filed outpatient ticket

under Ex.A4 issued by RIMS Hospital, Adilabad. It supports the

contention of the petitioner that immediately after the accident, she

was taken to the Government Hospital, after which she underwent

treatment at private practitioner.

b) Ex.A5 is the prescription issued by Dr.Tippeswamy at Akhil

Orthopaedic Hospital which reveals that the injured petitioner

underwent treatment on 17.03.2011, it supports the contention of

the petitioner that she underwent inpatient treatment at

Government Hospital from 16.03.2011 to 17.03.2011, and

thereafter she underwent treatment at Akhil Hospital. She has not

filed any medical bills in support of her case. As per the evidence of

PW1, she suffered two grievous injuries and the same is revealed ETD,J MACMA No.776_2021

from Ex.A3 and it is supported by the outpatient ticket under

Ex.A4 and the prescription under Ex.A5.

c) It is borne out by record that the petitioner was aged 12

years at the time of accident and she might have suffered with

acute pain, as a result of the injuries and during the period of

recovery. Keeping her tender age in view, she must have suffered a

lot, as a result of injuries sustained by her, thus an amount of

Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering.

d) No bills are filed to prove the medical expenses incurred by

the petitioner. However, it is the common knowledge that one

might incur certain incidental expenses like transportation, extra-

nourishment, attendant charges etc., Therefore, even if she has

undergone treatment at Government Hospital, some amount needs

to be awarded under this head, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is

awarded.

e) Since, she is a minor, no amounts are awarded under the

head loss of earnings.

f) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is assessed as Rs.75,000/- while the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled

for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.776_2021

14. POINT NO.2:

It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal

need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation.

This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.75,000/- from

that of Rs.50,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.05.2018 in

M.V.O.P.No.309 of 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad,

enhancing the compensation from Rs.50,000/- to 75,000/- and the

enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per

annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the

interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The respondents are

directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already

deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw

the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.