Telangana High Court

Upaari Pushpalatha vs M/S Pavan Traders And 2 Others on 2 May, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.541 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the

Order and Decree dated 10.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2475 of 2015

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (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 was that on

25.12.2014 at about 19:50 hours, the petitioner was going along

with his relatives in an auto bearing No.AP-13-X-7151 and when

they reached VACS Bakery, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, one Audi

Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 proceeding in the same direction,

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed,

dashed the auto from behind, as a result of which all the inmates

of the auto including the petitioner fell down and sustained

grievous injuries and the auto turned turtle. Immediately, the

petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills and the

petitioner took inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure.

Therefore, she sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

4. The respondents No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte.

5. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter

denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of

the accident and contended that there was complete negligence of

both the vehicles and therefore, the owner and insurer of the auto

are also necessary parties. They further denied the age, avocation

and income of the injured-petitioner and further denied the

medical expenses also. It is further contended that the driver of the

car did not bear a valid driving license as on the date of the

accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any

compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 25.12.2014 has occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 and whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident?

2. Whether crime vehicle No.AP-09-CP-0027 was owned by the first respondent and insured with second respondent as on the date of accident and whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief ?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents no

oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

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

compensation of Rs.3,23,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Sri P. Chandramouli, learned

counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned

counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation, inspite of the

evidence available on record. He further argued that the Tribunal

failed to consider the disability of the petitioner and failed to

appreciate the evidence adduced with regard to disability sustained

by the petitioner and further failed to award future prospects. He

further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts

under various heads and therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand

has submitted that the alleged disability of the petitioner is not

proved before the Tribunal and that the Doctor who issued the

Disability Certificate has never treated the petitioner and he is not

a member of the District Medical Board. Further, the said disability ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

Certificate is issued after three years of the accident and thus, the

said Certificate is not reliable. He further submitted that the

Tribunal has granted just compensation and therefore, prayed to

uphold the same.

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

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ?

3. To what relief ?

13. Point No.1:

a) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sustained

grievous injuries and has undergone inpatient treatment at Apollo

Hospital and has incurred huge medical expenditure and is

aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the

Tribunal. In support of her case, she filed Ex.A3/Injury Certificate

issued by the Apollo Hospital, which discloses that she sustained;

A transverse laceration over right cheek 5 cm x 1 cm, Fracture

maxilla and zygoma of right side, Nasal bone fracture.

b) Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospital,

wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained injuries in a

Road Traffic Accident and that the petitioner was admitted on ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

26.12.2014 and was discharged on 29.12.2014. The injuries are

stated to be Conscious, oriented Afebrile, Right upper eye lid +

Transverses laceration across right cheek to neurological area,

Depression right malar region, Restricted mouth opening, Nasal

bleed + Occlusion normal and that she was treated for the said

injuries through debridement done for fracture of Maxilla and

zygoma, reduced and placed in position, Nasal bone fracture was

reduced and stabilized. She filed medical bills under Ex.A5 to an

extent of Rs.1,33,011/- and further another bill of Rs.23,150/- is

also filed, issued by the Apollo Hospital. The said bill cannot be

considered, because it is prior to the accident. There are two other

medical bills issued by the Pharmacy at Apollo Hospital for

purchase of medicines.

c) She has also filed Disability Certificate issued by PW2 under

Ex.A6, it reveals that 50% disability sustained by the petitioner

which is partial permanent in nature, and injuries are shown to be

fracture of Maxilla zygoma and Nasal Bone Fracture.

d) It is her further contention that she sustained disability and

filed Disability Certificate under Ex.A6. She got examined

PW2/Dr.Ch. Sulapani who issued the Disability Certificate. A

perusal of Ex.A6 shows that the petitioner sustained 50% disability

which is partial permanent in nature and the nature of injuries ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

sustained are mentioned as multiple injuries over temporal scalp,

forehead, eyebrow, eyelid, left cheek and chin. The Disability

Certificate further does not disclose the nature of disability and to

which part of the body is the disability affected. It is elicited in his

evidence that he runs a hospital at Vanasthalipuram and he issued

the disability certificate as he has examined her physically and saw

that there is disfigurement of face which causes discomfort and

shyness when she mingles with others and that due to the above

said problem, there is a probability of developing inferiority

complex. In his cross examination he has admitted that he has

never treated the petitioner and for the first time, the petitioner

came to him on 20.09.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the

accident occurred in the year 2014. She has approached the

Doctor/PW2 after three years for obtaining the Disability

Certificate.

e) It is borne out by the medical record that she was inpatient

for three days and the nature of treatment underwent by her also

does not suggest the gravity of injuries to result in 50% disability.

It is further revealed from the nature of treatment given at the

Apollo Hospital that she sustained injuries on the face and wound

debridement was done and a collagen dressing was done over the

debrided abrasions. The nature of injuries as deposed by PW2 also ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

do not suggest any disability. Moreover he says that she may

develop inferiority complex in future and thus he has assessed the

disability to 50%.

f) The said evidence of PW2 does not convince this Court to

hold it to be reliable. The evidence of PW2 is not convincing and

the disability as mentioned in Ex.A6 also does not speak about the

details of the disability and the nexus with the injuries. Therefore,

the Tribunal has not considered the Disability Certificate while

awarding the compensation. The said decision of Tribunal is

opined to be just and reasonable and this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the same. However the Tribunal has taken all the

other components into consideration and has awarded reasonable

compensation.

g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex Court has held

that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a

labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. In the present

case the petitioner is working as beautician and was earning an

amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, the

income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month which is

just and reasonable.

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

h) Under the head pain and suffering, since she suffered

fracture injuries in the face, it is opined that Rs.1,00,000/-

towards pain and suffering would be just and reasonable.

i) The Tribunal has considered all the components and has

awarded reasonable compensation under the heads of loss of

earnings, transport, extra-nourishment, medical expenses.

However, it is opined that the compensation granted for pain and

suffering can be enhanced to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in view

of the injuries sustained by her, while the Tribunal has granted

Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the compensation that is awarded to an

extent of Rs.3,23,400/- is enhanced by Rs.25,000/- amounting to

Rs.3,48,400/-.

j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.3,48,400/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.3,23,400/-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioner is

entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is

answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal

need interference with regard to the quantum of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.541_2021

This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,48,400/- from

that of Rs.3,23,400/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.06.2021 in

M.V.O.P.No.2475 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,23,400/- to

3,48,400/- 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. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are 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.