Telangana High Court

Bigari Bharathi, Nizamabad vs Syed Akbar, Nizamabad And Anr on 10 March, 2025

          HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.4007 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge),

Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.2 of 2005, dated

04.09.2014, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P preferred the

present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

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

claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained

by her in a road accident that took place on 31.10.2003. It is

stated by the petitioner that on 31.10.2003, when the petitioner

was travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-5091 from

Nizamabad towards Varni and when reached near Chinthakunta

cross-road at about 3.00 p.m., the driver of the said Auto drove the

vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed

against a Cyclist coming from opposite direction and the Auto went

off the road and turned turtle. As a result, the petitioner, who was

travelling in the said Auto, sustained fractures of both bones of

MGP,J

right and left leg, fracture of right shoulder and skull and injuries

to other parts of body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to

Government Headquarters, Nizamabad, where she was treated as

inpatient and thereafter continued treatment with private Doctors

and incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards Nursing

and nourishing.

4. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that she was aged 32

years and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by doing Tailoring

work and Agriculture. Due to the accident, she incurred

permanent disability and unable to work and lost her future

earning capacity. As the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-5091,

therefore, respondent No.1, being the owner of the crime Auto and

respondent No.2 being the insurer of Auto, both are jointly and

severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- along with

costs and interest.

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

remained ex-parte.

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

statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and

contended that the driver of the Auto was not having valid driving

MGP,J

license and that respondent No.1 committed breach of policy

conditions as he failed to intimate about the accident to the

Insurance Company and that the insurance company had not

received report under Section 158(6) of M.V.Act and that the claim

of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to

dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the above pleadings, 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 the Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-5091 by its driver?

ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and against whom?

iii. To what relief?

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

herself as PW1, got examined PWs.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to

A4 and Ex.C1 on her behalf. On behalf of respondent

No.2/Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4

were 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.69,000/- along with

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

MGP,J

realization payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and

severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the

petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking

enhancement of the same.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.Surender Reddy,

learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Sri G.Raj Kumar,

learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance

Company. Perused the record.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/injured

as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that though the petitioner

proved that she sustained 60% disability vide Ex.C1 and also by

examining PW3, but the learned Tribunal had not considered the

said evidence and had not awarded any amount towards disability

and also awarded very meager amount towards compensation and

hence, requested 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 petitioner/injured,

except filing Exs.A1 to A4, had not filed any document showing

that she underwent treatment for the injuries sustained by her.

Therefore, learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had

MGP,J

awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is

not necessary.

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 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.30,000/- towards Pain and suffering, Head injury and shock;

an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards Medical expenses, Extra-

nourishment, Attendant and other incidental charges and

Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that

though the appellant sustained 60% disability vide Ex.C1 and also

got examined PW3-Doctor to prove about the injuries sustained by

her, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had

MGP,J

awarded very meager amount towards compensation and hence,

requested to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

17. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW2,

Superintendent of Government Hospital, Nizamabad, who deposed

in his evidence that the petitioner was examined by Dr.Sudheer for

the following injuries viz., (i) Swelling and Deformity over right leg

with disclosed fracture of shaft of fibula; (ii) Swelling and deformity

over left leg which revealed hair line fracture of tibia and (iii)

Abrasion over the left leg and that Ex.A3-Wound Certificate is

issued by him.

18. PW3-Orthopedic Surgeon deposed in his evidence that he

examined the petitioner and found that the injuries sustained by

the petitioner are one year old and that the petitioner sustained

(i) Fracture of right leg fibula, (ii) Fracture of tibia left leg and that

there was mal-union with limp and left ankle arthritis and that he

issued Ex.C1-Disability Certificate assessing the disability @ 60%

and that the injuries mentioned in Ex.C1-Disability Certificate

correspond to the injuries mentioned in Ex.A3-Wound Certificate.

A perusal of Ex.C1-Disability Certificate issued by Orthopedic

Surgeon, Vaishnavi Hospital, Nizamabad and who treated the

petitioner/injured discloses that the petitioner sustained 60%

permanent partial disability.

MGP,J

19. Undisputedly, PW3-Orthopedic Surgeon, has treated the

appellant. He has categorically deposed that the appellant has

suffered 60% permanent partial disability on account of the

injuries sustained to her. However, by a strange process reasoning

the Tribunal rejected his evidence by stating that the appellant has

not obtained a certificate from the Medical Board. The Tribunal has

not traced any statutory provision under which Medical Board is

constituted and obtaining of the permanent Disability Certificate

from the Medical Board is made obligatory for claimants under the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

20. In my considered opinion, nothing more is required than the

testimony of the qualified Orthopedic surgeon who treated the

appellant to show that the appellant has suffered the permanent

disability to the extent of 60%. Unless the Court finds the evidence

of the doctor not worthy of acceptance by giving cogent reasons,

the opinion of a qualified doctor, that too, of the doctor who

conducted the surgery and treated the patient, cannot be

discredited.

21. Further, a perusal of Ex.C1- Medical Certificate issued by

Orthopaedic Surgeon discloses that the injured sustained fracture

of fibula right leg and fracture of tibia left leg with mal-union of left

tibia causing shortening of limp and ankle arthritis and estimated

MGP,J

disability percentage by using Mc.Bride Scale @ 60% which is a

permanent partial disability. This Court finds the said disability to

be on higher side as the mal-union can be treated by a bone

stimulator which is placed over the skin near the non-union for

between 20 minutes and several hours each day or it can also be

treated by attaching a metal plate to the bone or inserting rod

down the centre of the bone. Further, the fracture injuries can be

treated by plaster cast or inserting rods for some period which can

be removed at a later point of time. In view of the above

discussion, this Court is inclined to reduce the percentage of

disability incurred by the petitioner/injured from 60% to 30%.

Further considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this

Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- each towards 2

fracture injuries and Rs.3,000/- each towards 2 simple injuries.

22. Though petitioner/injured stated that she used to earn

Rs.15,000/- per month by doing tailoring work and by working as

a labour on Agriculture, but she has not filed any document

showing the said income. Hence, the Tribunal, on reasonable

hypothesis, took the monthly income of the petitioner @ Rs.3,000/-

per month and calculated loss of earnings for 3 months which

comes to Rs.9,000/-. This Court, considering the said monthly

MGP,J

income as awarded by Tribunal, is inclined to calculate loss of

future earnings on account of disability as under:-

Loss of future earning capacity = monthly income of the petitioner x

percentage of disability x 12 x relevant multiplier

= Rs.3000/- x 30% x12 x16

= Rs.1,72,800/-.

23. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/-

towards pain and suffering; Rs.30,000/- towards medical

expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of

earnings, which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is

not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the total

compensation to which the petitioner/injured is entitled is

calculated as under:-

S.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded Amount by Tribunal awarded by this Court

1. 2 Grievous injuries - Rs.40,000/-

(Rs.20,000/- each injury)

2. 2 simple injuries - Rs.6,000/-

(Rs.3,000/- each)

3. Loss of future earnings - Rs.1,72,800/-

on account of disability

4. Loss of earnings for 3 Rs.9,000/- -

         months     during    the
         period of treatment.
5.       Pain and suffering       Rs.30,000/-            -


                                                                         MGP,J




6.          Medical expenses and     Rs.30,000/-         -
            extra nourishment
7.          TOTAL COMPENSATION       Rs.69,000/-         Rs.2,87,800/-

24. So far as interest on the compensation is concerned, the

learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the

date of petition till the date of realization which this Court

finds it to be meager and hereby enhances the same to 7.5%

per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex

Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.69,000/-

to Rs.2,87,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of realization. The

respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation within

a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this