Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1141 (TS)

M. Ramana Rao v. Nishani Laxman, Laxminarayana

2025-10-06

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Cum – Spl.Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act – Cum – V Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017, dated 05.10.2018, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.02.2016. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Eicher Van. It is contended that on 12.02.2016, the petitioner was proceeding towards Khanapur from Nirmal town on a motorcycle bearing No.TS-16-EE-9828 and when he reached near Voddepally Village, the driver of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-W-8779 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner’s motorcycle from behind, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries, fracture on head and suffered fractures of two legs and other injuries on the other parts of the body. The petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Nirmal for treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2016 under Section 337 and 338 of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle. 3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that prior to the accident, the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per year by attending agricultural operation and due to accident, the petitioner sustained fractures all over the body and suffered total disability and petitioner was completely bed ridden and also incurred huge expenditure for the treatment and claimed an amount of Rs.15,10,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 – Sriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the injuries caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. In support of the petitioner’s case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. On behalf of the respondents none examined but Ex.B1- Copy of Insurance Policy was marked 7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,05,280/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 8. Being unsatisfied by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per year and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that petitioner has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs.2,05,280/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation under other heads. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) Contusion over left tempo parietal region, ii) Abrasion over right forearm, iii) Abrasion over right shoulder. 10. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) Contusion over left tempo parietal region, ii) Abrasion over right forearm, iii) Abrasion over right shoulder. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner also got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW.2, and he has stated that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 12.02.2016 with head injury and injuries all over parts of body and the petitioner has taken X-Ray and C.T.Scan and other necessary medical tests and found that petitioner has suffered i) head injury left temporo parietal contusion, decomponessiew, craniotomy and bone flap kept in abdomen and it is further submitted that from the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was treated for the injuries and the petitioner will face difficulty in doing day to day work 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court wherein it has been settled the law by stating that Motor Vehicle Act is a ‘beneficial legislation’ and the victim needs to be awarded a reasonable and just compensation and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view in awarding compensation, as the petitioner has suffered from severe disability and unable to attend any work for the rest of his life. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,05,280/- which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the Award judgment and submitted that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 13. Heard Sri N.Srushman Reddy , learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma , learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record. 14. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 15. 14. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 15. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident occurred on 12.02.2016. The petitioner claimed that he was aged about 40 years and used to earn Rs.2,00,000/- per year by attending agricultural operation. PW2-Dr.K.Balakrishna Reddy, consultant Neuro Surgeon in Sri Krishan Neuro and Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad has deposed before the learned Tribunal that petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 12.02.2016 with head injury and other injuries and after careful examining all the reports of the petitioner, PW2 found that petitioner has suffered i) head injury left temporo parietal contusion, decomponessiew, caraniotomy done and bone falp kept in abdomen and PW.2 also conducted surgery on the petitioner with regard to the contusion on 14.02.2016. PW2 further averred that petitioner was discharged on 29.02.2016 with an advice to take follow up treatment and further stated that petitioner cannot attend any manual work throughout his lifetime. 16. The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate before the learned Tribunal nor in this Court with regard to permanent disability certificate and in the grounds raised by the petitioner only averred to enhance the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal, hence granting the compensation under the head ‘future prospects’ does not arise. The petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per year , however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.2,00,000/- per year. 17. In Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and others , 2025 SCC Online SC 1092 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs.10,000/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.5 reads as under for read reference: “5. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited determined an income of Rs.4,500/- per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed at Rs.500/- per month for every successive year. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2015, 11 years after 2004 and going by the principles stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthly income of Rs.10,000/-” 18. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shaikh Sadik Shaik Rafique’s case (cited supra) and looking at the avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.9,000/- as notional monthly income of the petitioner. 19. The petitioner might have taken rest for six months to heal the fractures injuries, but the learned Tribunal missed the sight and not granted any amount under the head ‘loss of future earning’, hence this Court is inclined to grant six month income to the petitioner i.e., Rs.54,000/- (Rs.9,000 x 6) towards ‘loss of earnings’,. 20. As per Ex.A6 – Cash receipts for an amount of Rs.1,31,200/- and Ex.A8-Clinial reports along with pharmacy bills for an amount of Rs.7,080/- in total Rs.1,38,280/-, which was granted by the Tribunal appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 21. Ex.A5 shows that petitioner received one grievous and two simple injuries and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.35,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.12,000/- towards two simple injuries which appears to be meager and this Court is inclined to enhance the amount for one grievous injury to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.20,000/- each for simple injury. 22. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of ‘damages to clothing and articles’, admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.5,000/- towards compensation under the head of ‘damage to clothing and articles’. The learned Tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the head of ‘pain and sufferance’, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the same, hence, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferance’. 23. The learned Tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the head of ‘pain and sufferance’, the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the same, hence, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.20,000/- under the head ‘pain and sufferance’. 23. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000/- for attendant, transportation and extra nourishment, which appears to meager and the same is enhance to Rs.20,000/- as against the compensation amount granted by Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and amenities, loss of pleasure, which this Court feel that the said amount granted by the learned Tribunal needs no interference, 24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference. Head Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court One Grievous Injury Rs.35,000/- Rs.40,000/- Two Simple Injuries Rs.12,000/- Rs.40,000/- (20,000 x 2) Medical Bills Rs.1,38,280/- Rs.1,38,280/- Attendant, Transportation and Extra Nourishment Rs.5,000/- Rs.20,000/- Loss of expectation of life and amenities and loss of pleasure and earnings. Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Loss of Future earnings - Rs.54,000/- Damages to cloths - Rs.5,000/- Pain and sufferance - Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.2,05,280 Rs.3,32,280/- 25. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition, and this Court is granting 9% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,05,280/- to Rs.3,32,280/- (Rupees Three Lakh Thirty Two Thousand and Two Hundred and Eighty Rupees only) with the interest of 9% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.