Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1428 (TS)

Sabbella Veer Reddy v. Nandu Ravinder

2025-11-07

G.M.MOHIUDDIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : G.M. MOHIUDDIN, J. 1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 26.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1623 of 2015 by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees ten lakhs only) from the respondents for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 07.12.2014, the petitioner along with his nephew were proceeding on his motorcycle from Illandu to Palvancha of Khammam District; while so, at about 9:30 A.M., a Tata Magic Motor Cab bearing No. AP-24-TV-0136 was proceeding to Illandu in opposite direction, which was being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injury to head, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Sai Sudha Nursing Home, Palvancha and from there, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kothagudem of Khammam District to make it as M.L.C; where he underwent treatment as inpatient from 08.12.2014 to 22.12.2014 and again from 12.01.2015 to 28.01.2015, during which the petitioner underwent surgery on 25.01.2015 and incurred huge medical expenses. 3. Based on a complaint, the Police, Tekulapally P.S, Khammam District registered a case in Crime No.240 of 2014 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle and after thorough investigation, filed Charge Sheet under Section 338 of IPC. 4. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged about 58 years and was running General Provision Store and Hotel business and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury to head, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries on various parts of the body and suffered 100% permanent disability. Due to the said accident, the petitioner lost his earnings during the period he was undergoing treatment. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injury to head, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries on various parts of the body and suffered 100% permanent disability. Due to the said accident, the petitioner lost his earnings during the period he was undergoing treatment. It is further stated that the petitioner had also spent more than Rs.10,00,000/- for treatment and other medical expenses for the grievous injuries sustained and was under bed rest for 3 years. 5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2 insurance policy holder and respondent No.3 driver of the crime vehicle remained ex-parte. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed a counter denying the age, income and avocation of the petitioner, averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Further, contended that the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., respondent No.3 was not having valid and subsisting driving license and the crime vehicle was not roadworthy to ply, on the date of accident. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to negligent driving of respondent No.3 while driving Acer Motor Cab bearing No.AP-24-TV-0136 on 07.12.2014? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what is quantum and from whom? 3) To what relief? 7. During trial, on behalf of the petitioner, he himself got examined as P.W.1 and also got examined the doctor as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.4, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1 was marked. 8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization, to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads. 9. Aggrieved by the said Award, the petitioner has filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation under various heads. 9. Heard Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.4-Insurance Company and perused the record. 10. The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant proved his case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-10, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that due to the said accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries and was admitted in the hospital and underwent surgery; however, the Tribunal has not considered the loss of earnings during the period of his treatment; disability suffered and the period of bed rest thereafter. Considering the same, the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation. On the above grounds, the learned counsel prayed to allow the Appeal and grant just and reasonable compensation. 11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation therefore, interference of this Court is unwarranted. 12. Now the point for consideration is: “Whether the impugned Award and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for any enhancement of compensation?” 13. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the injuries sustained by the appellant. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W-1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A-1 (FIR), A-2 (Medico-Legal Case Report), A-3 (Crime Details Form) and A-4 (Charge Sheet) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle and answered the same in favour of the appellant. 14. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not placed on record any evidence to establish that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running General Provision Store and Hotel business. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month. 14. It is an admitted fact that the appellant has not placed on record any evidence to establish that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month by running General Provision Store and Hotel business. On considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A-1 to A-4, the Tribunal had rightly fixed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- per month. This Court is of the considered opinion that the income fixed by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary and fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence placed on record. Further, the Tribunal having noticed the nature of injuries suffered, time taken to recover and engage in his daily routine, has taken a considerable period, to compute for loss of earnings of two months. Thus, considering the above aspects, the sum awarded by Tribunal under the head of ‘loss of earnings’, computed at Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000 x 2 months) appears to be ‘just and reasonable’. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal. 15. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal upon detailed appreciation of oral and documentary evidence recorded that the appellant was treated under ‘NTR Arogyasree Scheme’ as admitted by P.W-1 himself in his cross-examination (vide Ex.B1 – certificate issued by GSL Hospital, Rajahmundry). The Tribunal further noted that Exs.A-5 and A-6 did not contain any discharge summary, case sheet or prescriptions to support actual medical expenditure. The Tribunal also found inconsistencies in serial numbers of bills (Nos. 216 to 221), i.e., Exs.A-5 to A-7 issued on different dates, which were improbable and unsupported by hospital records where the appellant is stated to have taken treatment subsequently. 16. There is a startling feature to this case and that is, that the appellant’s contention that he remained hospitalized for one month and nine days in Haritha Hospital, Kakinada (a semi- government hospital), as the location being far away from the place where accident took place and also where the appellant is claimed to normally reside and engage in his business. Further, the reports produced in evidence by the appellant to establish that he underwent treatment in Haritha Hospital shows that it is afterthought and the said documents are brought into existence to suit the claim of the appellant. Further, the reports produced in evidence by the appellant to establish that he underwent treatment in Haritha Hospital shows that it is afterthought and the said documents are brought into existence to suit the claim of the appellant. Further, the entire evidence adduced by the appellant about the nature of the injuries sustained is based on a personal account in the witness box with no corroborative medico-legal testimony to support the nature or the extent of the injuries sustained. Admittedly, there is no permanent disability certificate on record, indicating any physical disability that the claimant might have suffered as a consequence of the accident as alleged. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant did not suffer any disability. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s view that the documents adduced by the appellant for claiming medical expenses incurred by him during treatment period which are produced under Exs.A-5 to A-8 unequivocally establish that these documents were created for the purpose of the claim and not genuine. Thus, this Court finds no reason to differ with such findings. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly applied the principle that mere production of bills (particularly suspicious bills) without corroborating hospital records or prescriptions does not establish medical expenditure, particularly when treatment under a free Government scheme is admitted. 17. It is evident that the appellant suffered injuries i.e., fracture of pelvis and Fournier’s gangrene on account of a Motor Accident and the same are undisputed; further, the treatment was provided under a free Government Scheme (“NTR Arogyasree”) and that the period of treatment lasted about one month and nine days, the compensation granted is neither arbitrary nor inadequate. Thus, the Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries suffered and age of the appellant and treatment underwent, has rightly awarded a sum of Rs.80,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the head of extra nourishment. The same appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. In the factual matrix of the present case, the findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasoning. No contrary evidence is produced by the appellant to warrant interference. 19. The same appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 18. In the factual matrix of the present case, the findings of the Tribunal are based on proper appreciation of evidence and supported by cogent reasoning. No contrary evidence is produced by the appellant to warrant interference. 19. In the light of the above, the contention of the appellant that unreasonable and meager compensation amount was granted under different heads is unacceptable. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, appellant was granted just compensation, as rightly quantified by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded under different heads and also the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 20. In view of the above discussion, evidence and material placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order by taking into consideration all the relevant aspects i.e., nature of treatment undergone by the appellant, medical expenses, and the expenses incurred towards extra nourishment etc., and has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization against the respondents jointly and severally. 21. This Court is of the considered view that the appellant failed to make out any case warranting interference by this Court with the impugned Award. The Appeal is without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 22. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned Award and decree passed by the Tribunal. The respondents are directed to deposit the said compensation amount after deducting the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of a receipt of copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.