Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 630 (TS)

Songa Chandraiah v. N. Sudhakar Goud

2024-08-30

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner challenging the compensation award passed by the Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge at Mahabubnagar (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.711 of 2008, dated 04.10.2010 and thereby, seeking for enhancement of compensation. 2. Heard Smt. J. Sandhya Rani, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner and Sri P. Harinatha Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company. Perused the material placed on record. 3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insuance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under: 4.1. On 24.10.2008 at about 5.00 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on foot by the side Lingala road to attend calls of nature and when he reached near Oil Mill, Jeep bearing registration No.AP-28-AD-1690 (hereinafter to as ‘crime vehicle’) came behind from Achampet side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture and other injuries. The petitioner has sustained fracture injuries to 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on right side, injury to the right side of the chest and other parts of the body and he is unable to attend his work. Further, the petitioner has incurred medical expenses to an extent of Rs.20,000/-. After the accident, the Police, Achampet Police Station registered a case in Crime No.108 of 2008 against the driver of the Jeep and filed charge sheet under Section 338 of IPC. 5. The claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Rule 455 of A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules 1989, before the Tribunal for claiming compensation of Rs.75,000/-. The claimant was aged 42 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of accident. 6. Respondent no.1-owner of the crime filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner and contended that accident took place only because of negligence of petitioner, who moved on the road in drunken state; that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and the policy was in force and therefore, insurance company is alone liable to pay compensation. 7. Respondent no.1-owner of the crime filed counter denying the claim of the petitioner and contended that accident took place only because of negligence of petitioner, who moved on the road in drunken state; that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company and the policy was in force and therefore, insurance company is alone liable to pay compensation. 7. Respondent no.2-insurance company has filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition inter alia contending that the accident was not caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, but claimed that the same was caused due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner himself. Further, it is contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving licence. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 8. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal : “1. Whether the accident occurred while the offending Jeep bearing NO.AP-28-AD-1690 on 24.10.2008 at about 5.00 p.m., in the limits of Achampet Village ? 2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving license as on the date and time of the accident ? 3. Whether the insurance policy was in force as on the date and time of the accident ? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ? 5. To what relief?” 9. In order to substantiate the case, petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, however, insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. 10. The Tribunal, on due consideration of material and oral evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the injured, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view of fracture, grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. 11. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view of fracture, grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident. He further submitted that Tribunal ought to have awarded amount towards pain and suffering for the injuries suffered by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager amounts towards medical expenses and loss of earnings, transportation and extra-nourishment and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards injuries sustained by the petitioner and the grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable and no case is made out warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration: 13. Insofar as the contention of the petitioner that Tribunal has not awarded the amount towards fracture injuries is concerned, on perusal of record, as per Ex.A6-wound certificate, petitioner sustained 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs fracture on right side, which are grievous in nature and one simple injury on the right side of the chest. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards fracture injuries i.e., Rs.20,000/- for each fracture injury and Rs.10,000/- towards simple injury, totaling to Rs.70,000/-, which is just and proper. Petitioner is also entitled a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering in view of fracture injuries sustained by him. 14. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for petitioner that Tribunal has awarded meager amount towards loss of earnings, transportation and extra nourishment is concerned, on perusal of record, the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of earnings and transportation and extra nourishment. 15. It is evident from the record that the Doctor, who treated the petitioner, was not examined. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner under Ex.A6- wound certificate, though the Doctor was not examined, the wound certificate cannot be ignored. Therefore, considering the nature of fracture injuries sustained, petitioner must have required at least three months time for healing the injuries. However, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner under Ex.A6- wound certificate, though the Doctor was not examined, the wound certificate cannot be ignored. Therefore, considering the nature of fracture injuries sustained, petitioner must have required at least three months time for healing the injuries. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.1, the age of the petitioner, fracture injuries and also the post operative period, this Court is of the opinion that petitioner is required three months time for recovery and to enable the petitioner to attend his normal activities. 16. In the absence of any evidence, monthly income of the petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,500/- as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rotal Sundaram Aliance, (2011 ) 13 SCC 236. 17. In view of the above discussion, petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- pm x 3 months) towards loss of earnings. 18. Since the petitioner has taken treatment in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and in different hospitals, he is also entitled to an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. 19. In Nagappa vs. Gurdayal Singh and others, (2003) 2 SCC 274 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under : “Under the MV Act, there is no restriction that the Tribunal/ Court cannot award compensation exceeding the amount so claimed. The Tribunal/Court ought to award ‘just’ compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount.” 20. In view of the Judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, the petitioner is entitled to more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the petitioner is a paramount consideration, the Court should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the petitioner to a just and reasonable extent. Conclusion: 21. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence placed on record, the compensation amount is recalculated as under : Sl. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Injuries Rs.70,000/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- 3. Loss of earnings Rs.13,500/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.3,000/- 5. Transportation and extra nourishment Charges Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,21,500/- 22. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,21,500/-. No. Head Compensation awarded 1. Injuries Rs.70,000/- 2. Pain and sufferings Rs.20,000/- 3. Loss of earnings Rs.13,500/- 4. Medical expenses Rs.3,000/- 5. Transportation and extra nourishment Charges Rs.15,000/- Total Rs.1,21,500/- 22. In the result, this Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.1,21,500/-. The said compensation amount shall also carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition made before the Tribunal till the date of the actual payment. The respondents herein are directed to ensure that the entire amount of compensation is deposited within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already paid by them. On such deposit, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.