Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1911 (TS)

P. Madhusudhan v. Boinolla Narsimulu

2025-12-24

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. This instant appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner assailing the Award, dt.28.11.2019 in MVOP.No.208 of 2017 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District and Sessions Court, Medak at Sangareddy(for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.10,35,223/- to Rs.18,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant/petitioner in the accident that occurred on 24.02.2017. 2. Parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day at about 13:40 hours while the petitioner was riding his motorcycle bearing No. AIH 206 from RTC Bus Stand towards the Mandal Revenue Office, Zaheerabad, at a moderate speed and proceeding on the correct side of the road and when he reached in front of Pallod Complex within the limits of Zaheerabad, the 1 st respondent, who parked the Santro car bearing No. AP 10 AM 1098, opened the car door suddenly and negligently without taking proper precautions, as a result, the petitioner dashed against the opened door thereby sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Zaheerabad, and thereafter shifted to Care Hospital, Hyderabad, and underwent treatment for fractures to ribs, head injury, right temporal EDH, left temporal contusion with SAH, and such other bodily injuries, and incurred heavy medical expenses. 4. Further, in relation to the said accident, the police, Zaheerabad Town Police registered a criminal case in Crime No. 45 of 2017 against the 1 st respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 IPC and after completion of investigation, laid a charge sheet. 5. It was further contended that the petitioner was hale and healthy before the accident and earning about Rs.20,000/- per month, and was also an income tax assessee. But, due to the fractures and other multiple injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner suffered physical deformity and unable to move freely, due to which he sustained permanent disability, and also suffered loss of amenities. Further, owing to the grievous injuries sustained, he has taken the assistance of a permanent attendant and had not attended to any work from the date of the accident. Further, owing to the grievous injuries sustained, he has taken the assistance of a permanent attendant and had not attended to any work from the date of the accident. Thus, it is contended that the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- under different heads from respondent Nos.1 to 3, contending that the driver, owner, and insurer of the Santro car were jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation with interest and costs. 6. Per contra, the 1 st respondent, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, filed counter denying the averments made in the claim petition relating to the age, occupation, income, health condition of the petitioner, the nature of injuries, treatment undergone, medical expenses incurred, and the permanent disability. It is further contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing No. AIH 206 driven by the petitioner and that there was no negligence on the part of the offending vehicle, and as such, it is stated that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. Further, it is contended that the owner and insurer of the motorcycle were necessary parties and that for non-joinder of such parties, the claim petition was liable to be dismissed. It was also pleaded that the claimant was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent, and that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is also stated the offending vehicle was falsely implicated with an intention to claim compensation and thus, sought for dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 7. The 2nd respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle filed counter reiterating the contents of the counter of the 1st respondent and denied the claim on the same grounds. 8. The 3rd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying the material averments relating to the age, occupation, income, health condition of the petitioner, the manner of accident, and the alleged consequences arisen thereof. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner himself at high speed. It was contended that the offending vehicle was not involved in the accident and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the petitioner himself at high speed. It was further contended that the compensation claimed and the rate of interest sought were excessive and that no interest should be awarded for the period of prolonged adjournments taken by the petitioner. It was also contended that the insurer did not admit the insurance coverage of the vehicle and that its liability was subject to verification of the policy, and that the claim petition was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the petitioner was required to independently prove negligence, irrespective of any criminal proceedings. It was further contended that there was no valid driving licences and roadworthiness at the time of accident and that the claim petition was filed in collusion with the petitioner and police, and thus, prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 9. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor vehicle accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as prayed for? If so, at what amount and from whom? 3) To what relief? 10. The Tribunal upon appreciation of the oral evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1 to A13 on behalf of the petitioner, and Ex.B1 marked on behalf of the 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1 st respondent and Ex.B1 policy was in force as on the date of accident. The Tribunal taking into consideration the nature of injuries sustained and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner, awarded an amount of Rs.10,35,223/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization holding the respondents No.1 to 3 jointly and severally liable. 11. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/petitioner filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 12. Heard Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Smt P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents No.1 & 2. 13. 11. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/petitioner filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 12. Heard Sri Sridhar Lonkala, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and Smt P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for 3 rd respondent-Insurance Company. Despite service of notice, none appeared for respondents No.1 & 2. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards permanent disability despite the grievous injuries suffered by the petitioner. Despite, the petitioner producing Exs.A12 and A13, towards ambulance and travel bills amounting to Rs.76,625/-, the Tribunal granted a meager amount of Rs.5,000/- towards ambulance charges. It was also contended that meagre amounts were awarded towards pain & suffering, loss of earnings, transportation charges, extra nourishment and attendant charges, warranting enhancement of compensation. 14. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company contended that in the absence of proof of disability, the Tribunal committed no error in refusing to grant any amount towards permanent disability. It was further contended that the amount of Rs.10,35,223/- awarded by the Tribunal towards Medicines, loss of earnings, pain and suffering and transportation is just and reasonable and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 15. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. 16. On a careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and out of the same, the petitioner sustained injuries. It was further established that the offending vehicle was duly insured with the 3rd respondent and also the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. 17. With regard to the quantum compensation, though the petitioner claimed to have suffered permanent disability, no disability certificate was produced to substantiate the said claim. Further, PW2, the doctor, who treated the petitioner, did not state that the petitioner suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any amount towards permanent disability. 18. A perusal of the award shows that out of total compensation of Rs.10,35,223/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.9,75,223/- was granted towards medical expenses. In the absence of such evidence, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the petitioner was not entitled to any amount towards permanent disability. 18. A perusal of the award shows that out of total compensation of Rs.10,35,223/- awarded by the Tribunal, a sum of Rs.9,75,223/- was granted towards medical expenses. The said amount was supported by the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and documentary evidence marked as Exs.A7 to A9. Thus, the Tribunal committed no error in that regard. 19. However, considering the nature of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner and the period of treatment undergone by him i.e., from 24.02.2017 to 11.03.2017 as an inpatient along with subsequent follow-up treatment as deposed by PW2 and supported by documentary evidence, it is reasonable to hold that the petitioner would not have attended to his avocation or any other work for a minimum period of three (03) months. Though the petitioner claimed that he was engaged in real estate business and earning Rs.20,000/-per month, no documentary evidence, including the income tax return, was produced to substantiate the said claim. Hence, it is just and reasonable to fix his monthly income at Rs.15,000/-. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for loss of earnings for a period of three months amounting to Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 3 months). 20. Further, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the nature and severity of the injuries, the said amount appears to be inadequate and requires enhancement. Therefore, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 21. With regard to transportation expenses awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.5,000/- is concerned, the petitioner produced Exs.12 and A13 bills, which show that he incurred expenses amounting to Rs.76,625/- towards ambulance charges and traveling expenses. Even though no oral evidence was adduced in support of the same, considering the period of treatment and hospitalization, it is just and reasonable to enhance the compensation under the head of transportation expenses to Rs.25,000/-. The amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is found to be just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 22. The amount of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is found to be just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference. 22. Thus, the total compensation works out to Rs.11,10,223/- and is detailed as under: Sl.No. Head Amount 1 Medical expenses Rs.9,75,223/- 2 Pain & Suffering Rs.50,000/- 3 Loss of earnings Rs.45,000/- (Rs.15,000/- X 3 months) 4 Transportation Rs.25,000/- 5 Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/- Total compensation: Rs.11,10,223/- 23. Coming to the rate of interest, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 6% per annum. However, in order to maintain uniformity and parity with the settled principles of law, this Court finds it just and reasonable to enhance the rate of interest to 7.5% per annum, in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 . 24. Accordingly, the appeal is partly ALLOWED modifying the Award of the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,35,223/- to Rs.11,10,223/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. Other conditions of the Award as regards withdrawal of the amounts by the appellant/petitioner, remains unaltered. The respondent- Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation amount along with accrued interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.