Telangana High Court

B.Venkateshwarlu vs Balaiah Goud And Anr on 13 March, 2025

                                     1
                                                                              MGP,J
                                                               MACMA.No.2961 of 2013




       THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2961 OF 2013
JUDGMENT:

1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in

M.V.O.P.No.836 of 2009, dated 25.03.2013, the petitioner/injured

in the said M.V.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.6,00,000/- from the respondent

Nos.1 & 2 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle

accident. It is stated by the petitioner that on 14.01.2009, when

he was proceeding by foot on the road near JNTU Cross-roads,

Kukatpally, Cyberabad, a DCM Van bearing No.AP-09-U-814 which

came from Balanagar side and driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner

fell down and the DCM van ran over the petitioner and the

petitioner sustained fracture injuries all over the body viz., crush

injury to left leg, injury to head, fracture of nasal, injuries to eye

and etc. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted

MGP,J

to Gandhi Hospital, Musheerabad, from there to Venkata Ramana

Hospital, Ongone for better treatment and during treatment, the

ankle portion of his left leg got amputated.

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Kukatpally Police Station,

registered a case in Crime No.57 of 2009 under Section 337 IPC,

took up investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of

the crime vehicle DCM van. It is stated by the petitioner that prior

to accident, he was hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.7,500/-

per month by doing Mason work. Due to the alleged accident and

injuries along with amputation undergone by him, he became

disabled and unable to Mason and centering labour work. He

further stated that he had spent handsome amounts towards

medical expenditure and has to undergo fixation of artificial leg for

which he may have to spend Rs.1,00,000/-. Hence filed petition

seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondents 1

& 2, being the owner and insurer of crime DCM Van bearing

No.AP-09U-814.

5. Respondent No.1/Owner of DCM Van bearing No.AP-09-U-

814 remained ex-parte.

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

denying the averments made in the claim petition including, rash

and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle, disability

MGP,J

sustained by the petitioner, medical expenses incurred and hence

prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

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

Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the accident resulting in injuries to the petitioner occurred owing to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of DCM Van bearing No.AP-09-U- 0814?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom?

(iii) To what relief?

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured, in order to

substantiate his claim, examined himself as PW1, got examined

PWs 2 & 3 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A1 to A8, Exs.X1 &

X2 and Ex.C1 on his behalf.

9. On behalf of Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RWs 1 &

2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the

claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.3,02,000/- along

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

date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2

jointly and severally. Being not satisfied with the said

compensation amount, the petitioner/injured preferred the present

Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

MGP,J

11. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for

the appellant/injured and Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Standing

Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the

record including the grounds of Appeal.

12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellant/injured

are that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the

disability sustained by the petitioner @ 30% as per Disability

Certificate issued by Medical Board under Ex.A8. He also

contended the learned Tribunal failed to award amount under the

Heads of transport, extra-nourishment, attendant charges, damage

to clothing, purchase of artificial leg and etc. and ought to have

awarded more amount under Pain and suffering and therefore

prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation

amount.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent

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

after considering all the aspects, had awarded adequate

compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is ,

Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

MGP,J

POINT:-

15. 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 again decide the above said aspects. The present

Appeal has been filed by the appellant/injured only with regard to

enhancement of compensation.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that

though the petitioner/injured got examined PWs 2 & 3 to prove

about the injuries and disability sustained by him, but the learned

Tribunal failed to consider the same and assessed disability on

meager side as against Ex.A8-Disability Certificate.

17. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW3

who deposed that the petitioner/injured was admitted in their

hospital on 14.01.2009 with Crush injury of right foot with fracture

of 3 & 4 Metatarsal and advised for amputation of right foot, but

due to unwillingness expressed by his attendants, he went on

LAMA (Left against medical advice). He stated that the injury

sustained is grievous in nature and that Ex.C1 is issued by their

Hospital. Though he was cross-examined, nothing adverse was

elicited to disbelieve his testimony.

MGP,J

18. A perusal of Ex.A8-Disability certificate issued by District

Medical Board, Nellore District, clearly shows that the petitioner

suffered amputation of dorsal ½ of foot - left to which the disability

is assessed @ 30%.

19. Hence, considering the grievous nature of injury, percentage

of disability and the submission made by the counsel for petitioner

that due to amputation of fingers, the petitioner is not in a position

to wear chappals and is suffering from unbearable pain, this Court

is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and

hereby consider the percentage of disability as assessed in Ex.A8-

Disability certificate.

20. As far as quantum of compensation is concerned, though the

claim petition is filed under Section 166 of M.V.Act, but the learned

Tribunal erroneously followed 2nd schedule of M.V.Act while

granting compensation. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere

with the same and hereby calculate the compensation as per

Section 166 of M.V.Act. Though it is contented by the petitioner

that he used to earn Rs.7,500/- per month by doing Mason work,

but he failed to produce oral or documentary evidence to that

effect. Hence, this Court, by relying upon the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1, wherein it

is held that though there is no proof of income and earnings, the

(2001) 8 SCC 197

MGP,J

income can be reasonably estimated taking into consideration the

avocation of the deceased, date of accident and age of the

deceased, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal

and hereby fix the income of the petitioner/injured @ Rs.4,500/-

per month. Since the petitioner was aged 36 years, the total loss of

income on account of disability is calculated as under:-

Loss of future income due to disability = monthly income x percentage of disability x 12x relevant multiplier = Rs.4,500 x 30%12 x15

= Rs.2,43,000/-

21. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards loss

of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income and Rs.60,000/-

towards medical expenditure which this Court finds the same to be

reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Since

the petitioner is still suffering from unbearable pain due to loss of

toe fingers, this Court is inclined to enhance the amount awarded

towards pain and suffering from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. Apart

from this, this Court considers desirable to award a sum of

Rs.5,000/- each towards extra nourishment, attendant charges

and transport expenses. Hence, the petitioner/injured is entitled

for a total compensation of Rs.3,93,000/- as calculated under:-

MGP,J

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

1. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.50,000/-

             Loss of amenities            Rs.15,000/-         -
2.
             Loss of income               Rs.10,000/-             -
3.
             Loss of future income       Rs.1,92,000/-   Rs.2,43,000/-
4.           due to disability
             Medical expenditure          Rs.60,000/-             -
5.
             Transport expenses                -         Rs.5,000/-
6.
             Extra nourishment                 -         Rs.5,000/-
7.
             Attendant charges                 -         Rs.5,000/-
8.
             TOTAL                       Rs.3,02,000/-   Rs.3,93,000/-

22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.2961 of 2013 is partly- allowed

by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal

from Rs.3,02,000/- to Rs.3,93,000/-. 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.