Telangana High Court

J. Naresh vs Rama Devi Kodiyala And Another on 2 May, 2025

                                  1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                M.A.C.M.A.NO.543 & 347 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

Both these appeals arise out of Order and Decree dated

26.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2015 passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV 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 petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

08.12.2014 at about 5:30 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding

on his motor bike bearing No.TS-08-EA-3604 and when he reached

near Meena Hospital, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad, driver of one

lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-2143 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the

petitioner, as a result of which he fell down and sustained fracture

injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,

Secunderabad, where he underwent inpatient treatment. The

petitioner suffered a lot due to the injuries and was bedridden and

that he is aged 32 years and lost his future amenities. Thus, he

claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

4) The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the

occurrence of the accident and also averments of the petition with

regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also

with regard to medical expenditure.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has

framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the injuries sustained by J. Naresh is Motor Accident occurred on 08.12.2014 due to rash and negligent driving of drivers of Crime vehicle lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-

2143?

2. Whether petitioner is entitled to compensation ? If so, how much and from whom?

3. To what relief?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A10 and X1 to X8. On behalf of the

respondents, RW1 was examined, and got marked Ex.B1.

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

compensation of Rs.3,05,000/- . Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant/Insurance Company and Sri P. Chandramouli, learned

counsel for the respondents.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued

that the Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay

compensation as the driver of the lorry was not holding valid

driving license as on the date of the accident. He further contended

that the Tribunal has granted huge compensation under various

heads. He further contended that the petition itself is bad for non-

joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike, as the said

vehicle was also involved in the said accident. He therefore prayed

to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

11. The learned counsel for the claimants on the other hand has

argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the earnings of the

injured-petitioner and that it has not awarded future prospects

and the Tribunal failed to observe that the claimant was

terminated from employment following the injuries sustained in the

accident. He further argued that the disability sustained by the

petitioner is 25% which is proved by the evidence of PW3, but the

Tribunal has not considered the same. Therefore, he prayed to

enhance the compensation by considering all the aspects.

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

points for determination:-

1. Whether the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-28-V-2143 was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident? If so, whether the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

2. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

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

4. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company is that the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-08-EA-3604

did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the

accident. To prove their contention, they have not filed any

document. RW1 was examined and the Policy was marked through

his evidence under Ex.B1.

b) A perusal of charge sheet reveals that the accused-driver is

charged under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, but there is no

charge under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contents

of the charge sheet do not reveal that he did not possess any

driving license. There is no other evidence put forth by the

respondents in proof of their contention. Therefore it is held that

the said contention of the Insurance Company is untenable and

hence, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay

compensation.

Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

14. Point No.2:-

a) The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation

granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner is stated to have sustained

fracture injuries due to the accident. In support of his case, he got

examined himself as PW1 and also got examined PW3/Dr.S.

Narsingh Rao who is a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at

Padmaja Hospital, Champapet, Hyderabad. His evidence reveals

that the petitioner underwent treatment in his Hospital for Grade-II

B open fracture of both bones of left leg and that he was treated for

the same in his hospital.

b) Ex.A9 is the X-Ray film issued by their hospital. Ex.A4 is

the Discharge Summary of Gandhi Hospital. It is disclosed from

the record that the petitioner underwent treatment at Gandhi

Hospital. However, the evidence of PW3 reveals that he approached

PW3 on 05.10.2016 for issuance of disability certificate. So on his

physical examination and on examining the X-ray film under

Ex.A9, PW3 has issued Ex.A6/Disability Certificate disclosing 25%

disability which is partial and permanent in nature.

c) A perusal of Ex.A3 the MLC issued by Gandhi Hospital

reveals that the petitioner sustained grievous injury in Road Traffic

Accident and that he was admitted on 08.12.2014 and was

discharged on 02.01.2015. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Card issued by ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

Gandhi Hospital which also reveals the said fact of his inpatient

treatment from 08.12.2014 to 02.01.2015 and that he was

operated on 20.12.2014 for his fracture in both bones of left leg. He

was advised with medication at the time of discharge and was

asked to come for a review. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued

by PW2 which shows 25% partial permanent disability and his age

is revealed as 34 years as per Ex.A6. With regard to the pain and

suffering under went by the petitioner an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-

is awarded. Ex.A7 is the medical bill for Rs.300/-. He took

inpatient treatment at Gandhi Hospital, which is free of cost.

However, some amount of incidental expenditure towards extra

nourishment, attendant charges and the transportation cannot be

ignored. Almost one month he underwent treatment, so an amount

of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards these charges.

d) It is stated by the petitioner that he was working as a

Teacher in Private School and was drawing Rs.23,000/- per month.

It is asserted by the petitioner that he was a very bright

academician. In support of his statement, he has filed Ex.A8 the

attested copy of Degree Certificate issued by University of

Massachusets Boston showing that he obtained Master of Science

Degree from the said University.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

e) The evidence of PW2 is adduced to prove the earnings of

petitioner. PW2 is an Accountant in Secunderabad Public School.

He stated in his chief examination that the petitioner was

appointed as Physical Science Teacher in their School on

2.06.2014 and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month.

After the petitioner suffered an accident, he was continuously

absent and thus, their management has terminated his services on

01.04.2015. In his evidence Ex.X1 to X8 are marked.

f) In his cross examination PW2 has admitted that he has not

filed any attendance register of the petitioner. He further admitted

that their School Management has paid two months salary to the

petitioner after the accident. Thus, it is elicited from his evidence

that the petitioner was terminated from services after the accident

by paying two months salary.

g) Ex.X3 is the SSC Certificate of the petitioner, Ex.X4 is the

Memorandum of Marks of Intermediate Education, Ex.X5 is the

Degree Certificate issued by Nagarjuna University, showing that he

completed his Degree of Bachelor of Science. Ex.X6 is the

Certificate issued by Osmania University which discloses that the

petitioner completed M.Sc in Computer Science. Ex.X7 is the Letter

of termination issued by Secunderabad Public School regretting

that he is terminated from employment with immediate effect. The ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

said letter is dated 01.04.2015. The service certificate filed under

Ex.X8 discloses that the petitioner used to draw a gross salary of

Rs.25,000/- and a net salary of Rs.23,000/- after deduction. Thus,

it is elicited that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in

Secunderabd Public School and was terminated from the service

after the accident.

h) It is revealed from the evidence of PW2 that he was paid

salary for two months initially after the accident and after which

they terminated his services from 01.04.2015. The nature of

treatment underwent by the petitioner discloses that he suffered

fracture of both bones of left leg for which he must have taken

about 6 months for the injuries to heal. Thus, he must have

suffered loss earnings for subsequent four months (4 x 25 =

1,00,000) is awarded under the head loss of earnings.

i) With regard to loss of future earnings, as per Ex.A6 he

sustained 25% disability due to the said fracture which is

permanent partial in nature which is scaled down to 5% in relation

to whole body and the same is taken as loss of future earnings to

the petitioner. As on the date of the accident, he must have been

23 years as he is shown to be 26 years in Ex.A6 dated 05.10.2016.

Therefore (10,000 +25000)= 35,000 x12 =4,20,000 x 5% x 16

=3,36,000 is awarded under the head loss of future earnings.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

j) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

SI. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court No. Rs.

1. Compensation under the head 1,00,000/-

'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2. Compensation of loss of earnings 1,00,000/-

(past four months 25,000 x 4))

3. Loss of future earnings due to 3,36,000/-

disability

4. Compensation under the head of 30,000/-

hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses Total 5,66,000/-

k) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,66,000/- which would

be just and reasonable. Therefore, the compensation granted by

the Tribunal is Rs.3,05,000/- which is enhanced to Rs.5,66,000/-.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:

In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 and 2 it is

opined that the order and decree of the Tribunal needs to be

modified enhancing the compensation from 3,05,000/- to

5,66,000/-.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.543_347_2021

16. Point No.4:-

In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is

dismissed and appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed, Order

and Decree dated 26.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2015 passed by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV

Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the

compensation from 3,05,000/- to 5,66,000/- 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 is forfeited, if any. The respondent No.2 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.