Telangana High Court

Gadi Santhosh Kumar vs Anwar Khan And 3 Others on 21 March, 2025

                                  1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.243 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 18.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District

Judge at Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

04.02.2018 at about 21:30 hours at SH.No.1 at Gollaguda Stage

near Indranagar Village, the lorry bearing No.AP-07-TH-3466

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the

motor bike of the deceased, as a result he fell down, sustained

grievous injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital,

Asifabad. After which, he was shifted to Apollo Reach Hospital,

Karimnagar on 05.02.2018, wherein he underwent further

treatment and that he incurred expenditure of Rs.50,000/-

towards his treatment. It is his case that he was aged 30 years and

was working as Police Constable, earning Rs.35,351/- per month

and that due to the said injuries sustained in the accident, he ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

received permanent disability. Thus, he claimed Rs.6,00,000/-

towards compensation.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the Insurance Company i.e.,

the Branch Office and Head Office of the Insurance Company, they

filed a joint counter, denied the case of the petitioner with regard to

his age, earnings and also they denied the occurrence of accident.

They further contended that there is no rash and negligence of the

lorry driver and that the accident occurred due to the rash and

negligence of the bike rider. They further contended that the lorry

was not having permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the

accident and therefore, denied their liability to pay compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for consideration:-

1. Whether the injuries caused to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry No.AP07TH3466?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation.

If so, to what amount and from whom?

3. To what relief ?

ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and

Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On behalf of the respondents no

evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.60,000/- as against the claim of

Rs.6,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

9. Heard Sri Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri S. Satyanand Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3

and 4.

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that

the Tribunal has awarded a very low compensation and the injured

has incurred heavy expenditure towards treatment and that he

also suffered permanent disability which the Tribunal has failed to

consider and that the Tribunal has not granted any amounts

under the heads of Transport Charges, Pain and Suffering and

Extra nourishment etc. He therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation and

that the petitioner being a Government Employee, his medical bills ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

were reimbursed and thus no more amount can be granted

towards compensation. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the

following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) To prove his case, the injured petitioner got examined

himself as PW1 and got marked the attested copies of the

documents. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not

filed any disability certificate and that he has not filed any proof to

show that he has spent Rs.50,000/- towards hospital and medical

expenses.

b) A perusal of the exhibits shows that all the documents are

the attested copies and Ex.A10 shows that he is working in the

Police Department as a Constable. Ex.A9 is the salary certificate of

the petitioner. It is the common knowledge that every Government

Employee is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses and

one has to submit the original bills to claim the said expenses. The ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

petitioner has not assigned any other reason for not filing the

original documents. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner got his

medical bills reimbursed to the Department and therefore, he has

filed attested copies of the documents in support of his case. No

Doctor is examined to prove the treatment underwent by him and

the medical expenses incurred by him. A perusal of Ex.A2/Injury

Certificate reveals that the petitioner sustained four simple injuries

and one grievous injury and that he was given First Aid and

referred to Higher Centre for further management. A perusal of

Ex.A7 which is the Discharge Summary of Apollo Reach Hospital,

shows that he was admitted on 05.02.2018 and discharged on

12.02.2018 and was diagnosed with closed head injury,

polytrauma, brachial plexus injury (Neuroprexic), alcohol

withdrawal and facial laceration. The fracture of posterior aspect of

bilateral 1st ribs was managed conservatively and that psychiatrist

consultation was taken for alcohol withdrawal, and chest

physiotherapy was done during the course of the treatment in their

hospital. Ex.A8 is the medical certificate issued by the Civil

Assistant Surgeon showing that he needs thirty days of leave for

restoration of his health. Four such medical certificates are issued

on 05.02.2018, 07.03.2018, 06.04.2018 and 05.06.2018. The said

doctor is not examined to prove the certificates issued by him.

Since, no doctor is examined, the mode of treatment underwent by ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

him and the medical expenses incurred by him are not proved by

the petitioner. However, he being a Government Employee, the

medical bills might have been reimbursed and since the attested

copies of bills are filed, the same cannot be taken into

consideration, to award any amounts under the heads of medical

expenses. He sustained four simple injuries and one grievous

injury and was hospitalised for one week. Considering the evidence

on record, an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering

is awarded.

c) Since, he is a Government Employee, he is entitled to

medical leave and no loss of earnings would be incurred during

such period of absence, but it would have impact on the

encashment of the Earned Leave. Though the petitioner claims to

have sustained disability, he has not filed any such certificate. He

has not even filed the Leave Application submitted by him, to prove

that he was away from duty for the said period of six months. The

medical certificates filed by him under Ex.A8 do not aid the

petitioner in any way to prove that he was absent from duty for

four months, so no loss of earnings can be awarded to the

petitioner.

d) Though the medical expenses are bound to be reimbursed,

the additional expenditure cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

the common observation that a person who is ill needs someone to

attend and also that an amount towards transportation,

extranoursihment, attendant charges etc., is required to be

awarded. Hence, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner

and the inpatient treatment underwent by him for a period of one

week, it is opined that awarding an amount of Rs.30,000/-

towards transportation, extranourishment, attendant charges etc.,

would be appropriate.

e) It is held that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of

Rs.80,000/-, while the Tribunal has granted Rs.60,000/-. Hence,

the compensation amount is enhanced by Rs.20,000/-.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:-

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified by

enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.80,000/-

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:-

In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 18.12.2019 in ETD,J MACMA No.243_2021

M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Adilabad, enhancing

the compensation from 60,000/- to 80,000/- and the enhanced

amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum

from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest

for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.3 is

directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said

amount without furnishing any security. No costs.