Telangana High Court

Tadipamula Krishna Goud vs Shaik Ahmed And Another on 6 March, 2025

         HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3446 OF 2009

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the

learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VII Additional District

Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan (for short, the Tribunal), in

O.P.No.214 of 2004, dated 24.07.2009, 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 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.11.2003.

It is stated by the petitioner that on 01.11.2003, when the

petitioner, along with others, was travelling towards Nizamabad

in an Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-25-U-2083, at

about 9.00 a.m., when the said Auto-rickshaw reached near

Kailash Timber Depot, Arsapalli, the driver of the said Auto

drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high

MGP,J

speed and gave dash to a Cyclist from behind and later, the said

Auto turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner and other

inmates of the Auto-rickshaw sustained multiple grievous

injuries. The petitioner sustained fracture of left forearm radius

lower end, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of 2nd, 3rd

metacarpals left, abrasion over left forearm, abrasion over the

left shoulder, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts

of the body and sustained permanent disability. Immediately

after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Government

Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and later admitted in

private nursing home and underwent several operations and

incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure.

It is stated by the petitioner that due to the fracture injuries

sustained by him, the petitioner is unable to walk and attend to

his regular work and getting pain, giddiness and became

dependant on others for performing his personal works. Hence

filed petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against

the respondents.

4. It is further stated by the petitioner that prior to accident,

he was hale and healthy and used to do agriculture and Milk

business and earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month and

contribute the same for maintenance of his family. Due to the

MGP,J

alleged accident, the petitioner was put to mental agony,

hardship and monetary loss and his life became gloomy which

cannot be expressed in terms of words. Since the alleged

accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-U-2083, therefore,

respondent No.1, who is the owner of the vehicle and

respondent No.2/Insurance Company both are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1/owner of Auto

bearing No.AP-25-U-2083, remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter

denying the averments made in the claim petition including,

age, avocation, income, manner of accident, injuries sustained

by the petitioner, amount spent towards treatment and

contended that the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-2083 do

not have valid driving license and APPSV badge to drive such

vehicle and the said auto was not road worthy to ply at the

material time of alleged accident and that the claim of

compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss

the claim against it.

MGP,J

7. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned

Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-

i. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Auto Trolley bearing No.AP- 25-U-2083 by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?

If so, to what amount and against whom? iii. To what relief?

8. During the course of trial, the petitioner/injured

examined himself as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked

Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent

No.2/Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced,

however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- along

with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly

and severally. Having not satisfied with the said compensation

awarded, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal

seeking enhancement of the same.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri Y.S.Yellanand Gupta,

learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Sri N.S.Bhaskara

MGP,J

Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance

Company. Perused the record.

11. The one and only contention of the learned counsel for

Appellant/injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal is that

though the learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence adduced

on behalf of the petitioner, but it failed to award adequate

compensation and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by

enhancing the compensation amount.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent

No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal,

after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable

compensation for which interference of this Court is

unwarranted.

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is,

Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

POINT:-

14. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident

and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at

by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there

is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The

MGP,J

only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is

with regard to quantum of compensation.

15. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the

impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.10,000/- each for 3 grievous injuries,

Rs.2,500/- each for 2 simple injuries, Rs.2,000/- towards

medical expenses, Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges,

Rs.1,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,000/- towards

attendant charges which in total comes to a total compensation

of Rs.40,000/-.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that

though the Tribunal appreciated the evidence of PW2-Doctor,

but it awarded very meager amount towards the said grievous

injuries.

17. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of

PW2- Doctor who deposed that the petitioner was examined by

Dr.P.V.Sudhakar and he stated that the petitioner sustained the

following injuries viz., (i) Swelling and deformity over left

forearm with fracture of left radius, (ii) Fracture of left clavicle,

(iii) Fracture of 2nd and 3rd metacarpal left, (iv) Abrasion over left

forearm and (v) Abrasion over left shoulder. He deposed that

MGP,J

the injuries mentioned under (i) to (iii) are grievous in nature

and the injuries (iv) and (v) are simple in nature. Further,

Ex.A3-Wound certificate discloses that the petitioner sustained

above injuries.

18. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A3-Wound

certificate, it can be held that the petitioner sustained 3

grievous injuries and 2 simple injuries. This Court, considering

the nature of injuries referred above, is inclined to interfere with

the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award a sum of

Rs.25,000/- each towards three grievous fracture injuries and

an amount of Rs.5,000/- each for two simple injuries. Also,

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner

and the pain and suffering undergone by the petitioner, this

Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the Head

of pain and suffering to the petitioner. Further, considering the

surgeries underwent by the petitioner and period of medication

prescribed to him, this Court considers that the amount

awarded under the head of medical expenses would not be

sufficient to meet his needs. Hence, this Court is inclined to

interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby

award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses.

Further, this Court, also enhances the amounts awarded under

MGP,J

the heads of transport, extra-nourishment and attendant

charges from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- and calculate the

compensation as under:-

S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Amount by Tribunal awarded by this Court 1 3 Grievous injuries Rs.30,000/- Rs.75,000/-

(Rs.10,000/- each) (Rs.25,000/- each

2. 2 simple injuries Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/-

(Rs.5,000/- each)

3. Medical Expenses Rs.2,000/- Rs.10,000/-

4. Attendant charges Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-

         during     period     of
         treatment
5.       Transport charges          Rs.1,000/-           Rs.5,000/-
6.       Extra nourishment          Rs.1,000/-           Rs.5,000/-
7.       Pain and suffering         -                    Rs.50,000/-
8.       TOTAL COMPENSATION         Rs.40,000/-          Rs.1,60,000/-

19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.40,000/- to Rs.1,60,000/-. Except the said finding, the

findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of interest

and liability shall remain undisturbed. There shall be no order

as to costs.