Telangana High Court
Bhukya Krishna vs V. Venkat Reddy And Another on 21 March, 2025
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3693 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge),
Khammam (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.1344 of 2004, dated
18.04.2007, 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 filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained
by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.10.2002.
It is stated by the petitioner that on 13.10.2002, when the
petitioner and his wife were walking along the road near a culvert
in Yedulapuram, the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-20-T-9292 drove
the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit
the petitioner from back side. As a result, the petitioner fell down
and suffered grievous injury over head, left hip, left hand, forehead
and fracture of hip joint besides other simple injuries.
Immediately, he was shifted to Cure Hospital, Khammam and later
to Government Hospital, Khammam where C.T.Scan and X-rays
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
were taken and operation was conducted over left hip joint of the
petitioner and steel plates were inserted. Subsequently, he
consumed medicines and spent a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards
medical and other expenses.
4. Based on a complaint, Police of Khammam Rural Police
Station registered a case in Crime No.290 of 2002 under Sections
337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the said Auto.
5. It is stated by the petitioner that he is a private employee
and used to earn a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month. Due to the
injuries sustained by him, he lost his earnings and as the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime
Auto, as such, he filed claim petition against respondents 1 & 2,
who are the owner and insurer of crime Auto bearing No.AP-20-T-
9292.
6. Respondent No.1/owner of the crime auto filed his counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition including,
occurrence of accident, involvement of Auto, injuries sustained by
the petitioner, treatment undergone by the petitioner and disability
sustained by him and prayed to dismiss the claim against him.
7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter
denying the averments made in the claim petition including,
narration of accident, age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner,
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
injuries, disability and treatment undergone by the petitioner and
contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the
petitioner in the alleged accident and that the claim of
compensation is excess and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim
against it.
8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned
Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:-
i. Whether Bhukya Krishna injured in a motor accident
occurred on 13.10.2002 due to rash and negligent
driving of Auto bearing No.AP-20-T-9292 by its driver?
ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation?
If so, to what amount and from which of the
respondents?
iii. To what relief?
9. During the course of trial, the petitioner/injured examined
himself as PW1 apart from examining PW2 on his behalf and got
marked Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.X1 on his behalf. On behalf of
respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B1-Copy
of insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent
No.2/Insurance Company.
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.4,682/- along with
interest @ 7.5% per annum from 03.11.2004 till the date of
deposit. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking
enhancement of the same.
11. Heard arguments submitted by Ms.K.Sirivennela Reddy,
learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy,
learned counsel on record for the appellant/injured. As Sri Katta
Lakshmi Prasad who filed vakalat on behalf of respondent
No.2/Insurance Company had passed away, his daughter,
Ms.Sravya Katta, represented respondent No.2/Insurance
Company. Perused the record.
12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/injured
as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal
failed to consider the evidence of PW2-Orthopedic Surgeon and
Ex.X1 case sheet and awarded meager compensation towards the
injuries sustained by him. It also failed to consider that the
petitioner lost his earnings for 4 months as he was bed ridden due
to the fracture injuries sustained by him and therefore prayed to
allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
13. 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 and interference of this Court is not necessary.
14. Now the point that emerges for determination is,
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
Whether the appellant/injured is entitled for
enhancement of compensation?
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 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.
16. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned
judgment shows that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of
Rs.4,682/- towards compensation out of which, Rs.2,000/- was
awarded towards injuries, pain and sufferance and the remaining
amount of Rs.2,682/- was awarded towards medical bills.
17. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant/injured in the present Appeal is that though the
appellant examined PW2-Doctor to prove about the injuries
sustained by him, but the learned Tribunal failed to consider the
same.
18. PW2-Orthopedic surgeon deposed in his evidence that the
petitioner was admitted in their Hospital as inpatient on
14.10.2002 with Pelvis Fracture, Head injury (Polytrauma) and
simple injury at left shoulder, left elbow which got healed with
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
scars and was discharged from the hospital after one month with
an advise of 3 to 4 months bed rest and follow up treatment and
after 6 months, when PW2 examined the petitioner, he noticed
that the fractures sustained to him are healed and he can do his
usual works except walking long distances. During his cross-
examination, he admitted that as per Ex.A3, the injury sustained
by the petitioner is only one simple injury. He also denied the
suggestion that the petitioner was not having any fracture injury.
19. A perusal of Ex.A3-Report of Duty Medical Officer,
Government Head Quarters Hospital, Khammam, clearly discloses
that the petitioner suffered tenderness over public bone and
sustained only '1'simple injury.
20. Therefore, considering Ex.A3-Medical certificate and the
admission made by PW2 in his cross-examination that the
petitioner sustained only one simple injury, this Court is inclined
to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards one simple injury instead of
Rs.2,000/- as awarded by Tribunal.
21. Upon calculating the medical bills filed under Ex.A5, this
Court found that the petitioner incurred a sum of Rs.14,555/-
towards medicines and is inclined to award the same.
22. It is contended by the petitioner that he incurred loss of
earnings for 4 months for taking bed rest due to the injuries
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
sustained by him. The evidence of PW2 also corroborates the
contention made by the petitioner. Since the petitioner stated that
he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month by doing private job, this
Court, considering the same, awards a sum of Rs.8,000/- towards
loss of earnings for 4 months.
23. Also, considering the pain and suffering undergone by the
petitioner due to the injuries sustained by him and the period of
treatment undergone by him, this Court is inclined to award a sum
of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- towards
attendant charges during the period of treatment and hereby
modify the findings awarded by the Tribunal as under:-
S.No. Details of Head Amount awarded Amount
by Tribunal awarded by
this Court
1. 1 simple injury Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/-
2. Medical bills Rs.2,682/- Rs.14,555/-
3. Loss of earnings during -
Rs.8,000/-
the period of treatment
4. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.1,000/-
6. TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.4,682/- Rs.33,555/-
24. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of number of numbering
of O.P. till the date of deposit of compensation. This Court, relying
upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v.
MGP,J
MACMA.3693 of 2009
Rajbir Singh and others 1 hereby award interst @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. As far as
liability is concerned, since Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was in
force as on the date of accident, therefore, respondent Nos.1 & 2
both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.
25. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,682/-to
Rs.33,555/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent
Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally. 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 judgment. Upon such
deposit, the appellant/injured is entitled to withdraw the same
without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to
costs.
26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.21.03.2025
ysk
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
