Telangana High Court

Gurum Ambika vs M/S Pavan Traders on 2 May, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.540 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.2476 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 that the

petitioner took inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure.

Therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.540_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 is complete negligence of

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

are also necessary parties. They 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 petitioners got examined PW1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondents no

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

ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

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

compensation of Rs.2,30,500/-. 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.540_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. In support of

her case, she got examined PW2-Dr. Ch. Sulapani. She filed

Ex.A3/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 26.12.2014 and

was discharged on 29.12.2014. The injuries are stated to be

laceration over forehead 3cm x 1 cm, stellate laceration over right

eyebrow and upper eyelid, laceration over temporal scalp,

laceration over chin, multiple abrasions on face, laceration on

lower eyelid and lateral canthus and that she was treated for the ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

said injuries through debridement and also that multiple foreign

bodies were removed. The collagen dressing was applied over the

debrided abrasions and at the time of discharge, she was

prescribed with some medicines. Ex.A4 is the medical bill issued

by the Apollo Hospital to an extent of Rs.1,08,278/- and PW3/T.

Srinivas Reddy the Billing Manager of Apollo Hospital is examined,

he deposed with regard to the inpatient treatment and also the bill

paid by the petitioner at their hospital. Nothing much was elicited

during his cross examination to dislodge his evidence.

b) 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 30% disability

which is partial permanent in nature and the nature of injuries

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 the

evidence of PW2 that he runs a hospital at Vanasthalipuram and

he issued the disability certificate as he has examined the

petitioner physically and saw that there is disfigurement of face

which causes discomfort and shyness when she mingles with ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

others and that due to the above said problem, there is a

possibility 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.

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

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

do not suggest the gravity of injuries to result in 30% 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

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

develop inferiority complex in future and thus he has assessed the

disability to 30%.

d) 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 ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

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.

e) The Tribunal has awarded the entire amounts spent on

medical expenses as Rs.1,08,478/- and further has granted

expenses towards transport as Rs.10,000/- and also Rs.15,000/-

towards extra-nourishment which are just and proper.

f) Further, in view of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the monthly

earnings of the labourer is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. The

same is considered in the present case and thus, the income o the

petitioner is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month on a reasonable

hypothesis.

g) The petitioner might have taken three months to recover

from the injuries as revealed from the nature of injuries and

treatment underwent by her. Thus, loss of earnings for three

months would be Rs.13,500/-.

h) An amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted towards pain and

suffering, while the Tribunal has granted Rs.25,000/-. The

Tribunal has considered all the other components including

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

transportation, injuries. The Tribunal has granted an amount of

Rs.60,000/- for injuries which are found to be just and

reasonable. Only with regard to pain and suffering, the

compensation is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- and with regard to the

loss of earnings, Rs.13,500/- is granted instead of Rs.12,000/-.

i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled is calculated as Rs.2,56,978/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.2,30,478/-. Therefore, 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.

This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,56,978/- from

that of Rs.2,30,478/- 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.2476 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

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

Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,30,478/- to ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021

2,56,978/- 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.