Telangana High Court
M. Narayana vs G. Raju And Another on 4 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3401 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded
by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims
Tribunal - cum - VII Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad
at Bodhan in O.P. No.140 0f 2005, dated 27.07.2009, the
present Appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will
be referred to as per their array before the learned Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs
only) for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle
accident that occurred on 11.02.2004. According to the
petitioner, on 11.02.2004 at about 1:30 PM, while he along with
his friend named Sailu were proceeding on his bicycle and when
they reached Srinivasa Camp, the driver of the auto rickshaw
bearing registration No. AP.9.V.1869 (herein after called as
'alleged crime vehicle') drove the vehicle in rash and negligent
manner with high speed, came in the opposite direction and
MGP,J
dashed the bicycle of the petitioner; as a result, the petitioner
sustained fracture on right forearm both bones, fracture of right
shoulder, fracture of right pelvis, multiple abrasions on right
hip and other body part and grievous injuries on head and all
over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Sri
Venkateshwara Hospital, Nizamabad, wherein he was admitted
as inpatient and undergone several operations. The Police
Station Bodhan, Nizamabad District registered a case in First
Information Report (FIR) No.58 of 2004 for the offence under
Sections 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1806 against the driver
of crime vehicle bearing No. AP 9 V 1869 and after investigation
charge sheet was filed.
4. According to the petitioner, he was working as labour in
Municipal water works department, Bodhan and aged about 38
years at the time of accident and used to earn more than
Rs.6,000/- per month. Therefore, the petitioner claimed
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs) against the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the
crime vehicle, for the injuries suffered by him under different
heads.
5. Before the learned tribunal, the respondent No.1, owner of
the crime vehicle, remained exparte and whereas, the
MGP,J
respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying the
averments of the claim petition and the manner in which the
accident occurred, including the age, avocation and income of
the injured. It was further contended that the driver of the
alleged crime vehicle was not having a valid driving license and
APPSV badge to drive such vehicle at the time of accident. The
alleged vehicle was not road worthy to ply at the material time of
alleged vehicular accident which in itself violates the condition
stipulated in the insurance policy. Therefore, the insurance
company assailed the liability to pay any compensation amount
on the above grounds. It is further contended that the
respondent No.1 alone is responsible to pay the compensation,
if any, awarded by the tribunal and the amount claimed is
excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal of the case
against them.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the
following issues:
a) Whether the accident has taken place due to the rash
and negligent driving of the Auto bearing registration
No. AP.9.V.1869 by it driver?
b) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If
so, to what amount and against whom?
c) To what relief?
MGP,J
7. On behalf of the petitioner/claimant, he got examined
himself as PW1 and also got examined PW2 i.e., the doctors,
who treated PW1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 and Ex.C-1. On
behalf of the respondent No.2/insurance company, none were
examined, however, got marked Ex. B1 Insurance policy copy.
8. The learned tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record partly allowed the claim
petition and awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- with interest
at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of
deposit on both the respondents jointly and severally.
9. Not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal, the petitioner/claimant herein filed the
present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same under various
heads.
10. Heard both sides and perused the entire material
available on record including the grounds of Appeal.
11. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellant
is that though appellant proved his case by adducing cogent
evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs. A-1 to
A-5; C-1, the learned Tribunal without considering the same
erroneously awarded meager compensation amount. It was
MGP,J
further contended that the learned Tribunal has not considered
the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 coupled with Ex.A-3 i.e., wound
certificate, Ex.A-5 X-ray films; Ex.C-1 medical case sheet and
discarded the oral and documentary evidence in toto. Hence,
prayed to enhance the compensation on all heads by
considering the grievous injuries sustained and mental agony
suffered on account of vehicular accident.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance
Company contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately
granted just and reasonable compensation, therefore, the same
needs no interference by this court.
12. Now the point for consideration is that:
Whether appellant/petitioner is entitled for
enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the
compensation amount granted vide impugned Order and
Decree by the learned Tribunal?
13. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate
to note down some of the admitted facts. The respondent No.2
has not preferred any appeal against the impugned order.
There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as
the Tribunal by relying on Ex.A1 (First Information Report)
answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to
rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., auto
MGP,J
rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 9 V 1869 and that the
appellant/claimant sustained injuries in the said accident.
There is also no dispute that the insurance policy under Ex.B1
was subsisting as on the date of accident.
14. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered
that the claimant has sustained multiple grievous injuries and
was admitted in the hospital for better treatment and
continuous follow up treatment, but learned tribunal without
considering these crucial aspects erroneously awarded meager
amount.
15. The petitioner as PW-1 has reiterated the contents of the
claim petition and also relied upon the documents under Exs.A1
to A5; Ex.C-1 in order to prove the injuries suffered and also got
examined PW-2 the doctor, who has treated the petitioner. In
his evidence PW2 stated that the petitioner was admitted in
hospital on 11.02.2004 with fracture of both bones of right
forearm; fracture of the acromion right shoulder; fracture of the
right illac bone; multiple abrasion in the right fore arm and
multiple abrasion of right hip. He further deposed that the
petitioner was discharged on 16.02.2004 with an advice to take
proper medications as the injuries were grievous in nature.
MGP,J
16. The learned Tribunal considering the evidence of PWs 1
and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5; C-1 has awarded Rs. 30,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- each for 3) grievous injuries and Rs.5,000/-
(Rs.2,500/- each for 2) simple injuries. Considering the nature
of injuries sustained and documentary evidence on record,
awarding of Rs.30,000/- for three grievous injuries and
Rs.5,000 for two simple injuries appears to be on lesser side.
Hence, this court deems fit to enhance the compensation
amount by awarding Rs.75,000/-(Rs.25,000/- each for three
grievous injuries) and Rs. 10,000/-(Rs.5000/- each for two
simple injuries) would be just and reasonable.
17. It is further contended by the appellant that the learned
Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-
under the head of medical expenditure. It is evident from the
record that the petitioner has not adduced any medical bills
issued by the hospital to support his contention, however, the
learned Tribunal considering the medical prescriptions in Ex.C1
i.e., Medical case sheet has awarded Rs.2,500/-. It is pertinent
to note that the claimant was admitted as inpatient in a private
hospital for 5 days and Ex.C-1 shows prescriptions of treating
doctor, thus, claimant might have incurred considerable
amount towards medicines and hospital charges. The amount of
MGP,J
Rs.2,500/- awarded by learned Tribunal under the head of
'medical expenses' seems to be on lesser side. Hence, this court
deems fit to enhance the compensation amount by awarding
Rs.5,000/- which is just and reasonable.
18. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- under the
head of attendant and extra nourishment expenses and
Rs.2,500/- for mental agony and Rs.2,000/- for transportation,
which are reasonable. Hence, this court is not inclined to
interfere with the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal
under the above heads. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for
the compensation under various heads, as follows:
Sl.No Name of the head Compensation
entitled by the
claimant
1. Grievous Injuries (25,000 x3) Rs.75,000/-
2. Simple Injuries (5,000 x 2) Rs.10,000/-
3. Attendant & Extra nourishment Rs.3,000/-
4. Medical expenses and hospital charges Rs.5,000/-
4. Pain and Mental Agony 2,500/-
5. Transportation Charges 2,000/-
Total 97,500/-
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation from Rs.45,000/- to Rs.97,500/- which shall
MGP,J
carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents
jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit
the compensation amount within a period of two months from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
the petitioner/appellant is entitled to withdraw the same
without depositing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 04.03.2025
AS
