Telangana High Court
Dappur Narsimulu vs Shaik Younus Ali And Another on 9 June, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.920 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -
cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy
(hereinafter referred as 'the Tribunal') in O.P.No.177 of 2008,
dated 31.05.2010, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P.
preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the
petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of
Rs.1,25,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a
motor vehicle accident that took place on 26.11.2007. As
stated by the petitioner, on 26.11.2007 at about 12 'o' clock,
when he was proceeding on his bike bearing No.AP-23L-7008
from Peddapur Village to Hyderabad via Shankerpally and
when reached near Donthanpally College, one TATA ACE
bearing No.AP-9Y-8040 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, came at a high speed and dashed against
NBK,J
the bike of the petitioner, due to which, he received Head
injury and grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately, he
was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and took
treatment from 26.11.2007 to 01.12.2007 as inpatient and
later underwent treatment in private hospitals and incurred a
huge expenditure towards transportation, medicines and
treatment.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Shankerpally Police
Station registered a case in Crime No.173 of 2007 under
Section 337 IPC and filed charge sheet under Section 338 IPC
against the driver of the crime vehicle.
5. It is stated by the petitioner that due to sustaining of
head injury, he is unable to attend to his normal duties and
also unable to speak properly. As the alleged accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of
crime TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040, as such, he filed
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- against
the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of subject
TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040.
6. Before the Tribunal, Respondent No.1/Owner of TATA
ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040 remained ex-parte.
NBK,J
7. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the rash and negligent driving on part of the driver of
TATA ACE bearing No.AP-9Y-8040, age, occupation, income of
the petitioner, injuries sustained by him, treatment taken by
him and medical expenses incurred by him and contended
that the driver of the crime vehicle was having valid and
subsisting driving license at the time of accident and that the
claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore
prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
8. Based on the above, the learned Tribunal had framed
the following issues for trial:-
(i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation? If so, at what quantum and from
whom?
(iii) To what relief?
9. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/injured
examined himself as PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4 on his
behalf. Since respondent No.1 remained ex-parte, on behalf of
respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no witness was
examined, however got marked Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy
with consent.
NBK,J
10. Taking into consideration the evidence and documents
available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed
the claim petition by awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/-
towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. Having not
satisfied with the said compensation amount, the claim
petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking
enhancement of the same.
11. Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the
Appellant/injured as well as Sri N.Chandrashekhar Reddy,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri A.Ramakrishna
Reddy, learned Standing Counsel on record representing
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
12. The contentions of the learned counsel for
appellant/injured are that the learned Tribunal, by
considering Ex.A3-wound certificate and the grievous injuries
sustained by the petitioner, ought to have awarded
compensation as claimed for; it also failed to grant any
amount towards extra-nourishment and transport and
therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the
compensation amount.
NBK,J
13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the
learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had
awarded reasonable compensation which do not require any
further enhancement of the same.
14. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
POINT:-
15. Since there is no dispute about occurrence of accident
and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived
by the Tribunal on those aspects were not challenged, this
Court is not inclined to discuss the said aspects. The only
ground that has to be discussed in the present Appeal is with
regard to quantum of compensation.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A3-wound certificate
and awarded meager compensation.
17. A perusal of Ex.A2-Injury certificate as mentioned in
Appendix of Evidence clearly discloses that the petitioner has
received laceration of 15cm x 14 cm on right side of scalp and
abrasion on the face extending from right cheek to occipital
NBK,J
region. But the Medical Officer did not make any mention
about the nature of said injuries i.e., whether they are simple
or grievous in nature. Hence, the learned Tribunal, by
considering the age, occupation and nature of injuries,
awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- on all counts
which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby award a
sum of Rs.5,000/- each towards two simple injuries. Since
the petitioner/injured has undergone treatment for a
considerable period due to the said injuries, he might have
incurred certain amount towards his medical expenses and
transport. Hence, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of
Rs.5,000/- towards Medical expenses and transportation
charges. Also considering the injuries sustained by the
petitioner, the petitioner has to intake nutritious food to
recover from the said injuries. Hence, this Court hereby grant
a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total, the
petitioner is entitled for enhanced compensation under
different heads as calculated hereunder:-
S.No. Details of Awarded Awarded by this
Head by Court
Tribunal
1 Global Rs.5,000/- -
compensation
on all counts
2. 2 simple - Rs.10,000/-
injuries (Rs.5,000/- each)
3. Medical and - Rs.5,000/-
Transportation
NBK,J
charges
4. Extra - Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
5. TOTAL Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
COMPENSATION
18. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing
the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.20,000/-. Except the said finding, the
findings arrived by the Tribunal in all other aspects shall
remain undisturbed. There shall be no order as to costs.
19. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
Dt. 09.06.2025
ysk
NBK,J
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A.No.920 OF 2012
Dt.09.06.2025
ysk
