Telangana High Court

Katta Balaiah vs V. Dhanpal Reddy on 7 March, 2025

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                     M.A.C.M.A.NO.99 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-

claimant being not satisfied with the Award, dated

04.10.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.690 of 2015 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII

Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the

Tribunal')

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 05.08.2015

the appellant-claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a

motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-ED-4733 from Yellareddy

towards Ramakkapally side and when he reached near Village

Tank, Yellareddy Village, in the meantime, one Car bearing

No. TS-08-EC-2829 came from opposite direction in a rash

and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed against

the appellant's motorcycle. Due to which, the appellant-

claimant fell down from the motorcycle and sustained

commuted facture of both bones of right leg, fracture of right

leg femur, fracture of right foot, head injury and also received

injuries to all parts of the body. Immediately, after the NNR,J 2 macma_99_2020

accident, the appellant-claimant was shifted to Government

Hospital, Yellareddy and from there he was shifted to

Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was

treated by an Orthopaedic Surgeon as inpatient. The

appellant incurred an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards

medical expenses. The appellant-claimant was hale and

healthy prior to the accident and doing agricultural work and

vegetable business and used to earn an amount of

Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the accident, he was unable

to walk and attend his regular duties. It is further stated that

due to the accident, he also sustained 100% permanent

disability. According to the appellant, the accident has

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Car. It

is further contended that respondent No.1 is owner and

respondent No.2 is insurer of the Car are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation to the appellant-claimant. Hence,

the appellant-claimant filed claim petition claiming

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the

Tribunal.

NNR,J 3 macma_99_2020

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying all

the averments made in the claim petition including the

manner of accident, age, avocation, earning capacity,

incurring of medical expenses, involvement of car in accident

etc. It is further stated that the driver of the car was not

having valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and that the

compensation claimed by the appellant-claimant is excessive

and exhorbitant and hence, he prays to dismiss the O.P.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence

on record both oral and documentary evidence, came to the

conclusion that the accident has occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of Car and awarded compensation

of Rs.65,859/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum and directed

respondent No.2 to pay the said amount to the appellant-

claimant within the time specified in the Award.

6. Heard Mr.Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel

appearing for the appellant-claimant and Mr.A.Ramakrishna

Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-

Insurance Company. Perused the record.

NNR,J 4 macma_99_2020

7. The only point that arises for consideration in this

appeal is "Whether the appellant is entitled for

enhancement of compensation?"

8. POINT:

To substantiate the case of the appellant he himself

examined as P.W.1. He also stated that he was doing

agricultural work and vegetable business prior to the accident

and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. Though

the appellant has not filed any document to show that he was

earning an amount of Rs.20,000/-, he filed copy of pattadar

passbook, which shows that he is having Ac.3-00 guntas of

land. Learned counsel further submitted that the appellant

has also examined P.W.2-Dr.R.Anjani Kumar, Orthopaedic

Surgeon, who treated him on 06.08.2015 for open fracture

right tibia and fibula and shaft femur fracture sustained by

him. He stated that the said injuries are grievous in nature

and open reduction and internal fixation on tibia and fibula

were done on 08.08.2015. He further stated that second

operation was conducted on 14.08.2015 with nailing femur.

He further stated that the appellant was discharged from the

hospital on 17.08.2015 with an advise for follow up NNR,J 5 macma_99_2020

treatment. The appellant-claimant has taken treatment for a

period of eight (8) months from the date of accident and

hence, sought enhancement of the compensation.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for

Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal after

considering the entire evidence on record, rightly awarded

compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the

impugned award and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

10. The appellant has claimed an amount of

Rs.22,00,000/- towards loss of earnings from the date of

accident. He also stated that he is earning an amount of

Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agricultural work and also

vegetable business. Though the appellant has not filed any

document to show that he is earning the said amount, he filed

copy of pattadar passbook which was issued in his name that

he is having Ac.3-00 guntas of land. But, the Tribunal has

taken the earnings of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month

having not believed the version of P.W.1. Considering the

said income and considering the injuries sustained by him

and on the ground that he must have taken two months bed NNR,J 6 macma_99_2020

rest and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.12,000/-

towards loss of earnings.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that

the Tribunal without considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the appellant, has taken only two (2) months as

rest period and assessed loss of earnings of the appellant at

Rs.12,000/- for two months (Rs.6,000/- per month) which is

meagre. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case

and taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, the

Tribunal ought to have taken the period of treatment as eight

months for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the

accident. In all probabilities, considering the nature of

injuries sustained by him, obviously, the appellant would

have stayed at home at least for a period of six months

without any income. As such this Court is of the opinion that

the compensation under the head of loss of earnings can be

taken for a period of six months and accordingly, the

appellant would be entitled for a sum of Rs.24,000/- towards

loss of earnings.

12. Admittedly, the appellant has sustained two

grievous injuries. In support of his contention he also NNR,J 7 macma_99_2020

examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated him. But, learned

Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the

head of pain and suffering without awarding amount

individually for each injury. It appears that the amount

awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pain and

sufferance is on meagre side and it needs to be enhanced.

Accordingly, the appellant would be entitled to an amount of

Rs.30,000/- under the head of pain and suffering in addition

to the amount awarded by the Tribunal in all a total sum of

Rs.60,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.

13. Coming to transport charges and extra

nourishment, the contention of appellant is that he incurred

an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-. In support of his contention, he

filed Ex.A.8 transportation bills (7 Nos.) for an amount of

Rs.35,000/-. But, learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company has contended that the said bills are not

certified, approved or examined by the

author, who issued the said bills. Therefore, the Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation

charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment.

14. Considering the nature of the accident occurred NNR,J 8 macma_99_2020

and the prolonged treatment obtained by the appellant

obviously the appellant would have engaged an Ambulance

initially for shifting him from one hospital to another and for

subsequent follow up treatment he would have engaged a

Car/any vehicle. Though the said bills have not been proved

by leading any evidence, but considering the ground realities,

this Court is of the opinion that the amount granted by the

Tribunal towards transportation charges and extra

nourishment needs for interference and accordingly the

appellant would be entitled an additional amount of

Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, which would be

appropriate and reasonable. As far as medical bills are

concerned, the appellant filed Exs.A.5 and A.6, for which the

Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.3,859/- which needs

no interference by this Court.

15. Though the contention of the appellant is that he

sustained 100% permanent disability, he has not adduced

any oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal that he

sustained disability. In the absence of any evidence, the

appellant is not entitled to claim the same.

NNR,J 9 macma_99_2020

16. As the appellant has no grievance on other

amounts awarded by the Tribunal, I hold that the appellant

would be entitled for following additional amounts in addition

to the amounts which are already awarded by the learned

Tribunal.


Sl.No.          Description            Amount award     Additional
                                          by the         Amount
                                         Tribunal     awarded by this
                                            Rs.           Court
                                                           Rs.
  1.     Pain and suffering                  30,000          30,000
  2.     Transportation                      15,000          10,000
         charges
  3.     Loss earnings                      12,000           24,000
  4.     Extra nourishment                   5,000
  5.     Medical Bills                       3,859
         Total                           65,859-00       64,000-00

17. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed awarding

total compensation of Rs.1,29,859/- (Rupees one lakh twenty

nine thousand eight hundred and fifty nine only) to the

appellant with interest @ 7.5% per annum. The respondents

are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation amount

with interest @ 7.5% per annum (excluding the amount

already paid) within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to

costs.

NNR,J 10 macma_99_2020

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal

shall stand closed.