Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1912 (TS)

Thappetla Veeraiah v. T. Jalender Reddy

2025-12-24

SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO, J. The instant appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the Award, dt.02.08.2017, in MVOP.No.75 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judge, Family Court-cum-VI Additional District Judge, at Khammam(for short ‘the Tribunal’), seeking enhancement of compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 28.04.2011. 2. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent-Insurance Company. None appeared for the 1st respondnet/Owner. 3. For better understanding, parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that, on 28.04.2011 at about 06:30 hours, while the claimant was transporting goods on his trolley auto bearing No. AP 20/W-2522, to Bharat Motors Taffee Tractor Showroom, a lorry bearing No. AP-28/TA 1998, which came from the opposite direction of the deceased-auto in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the claimant’s auto, which resulted in the claimant sustaining severe head injuries. Immediately, the claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Khammam, and due to his precarious condition, he was shifted to Mamata General Hospital, Khammam, for better treatment. 5. The police, Khammam Rural, registered a criminal case in Crime No. 103 of 2011 against the driver of the offending vehicle and after completion of the investigation, laid char4ge sheet before the competent Court. 6. It is further contended that the claimant was hale and healthy prior to the accident, and earning Rs. 500/- per day as an auto-trolley driver, but due to the fractures and multiple injuries sustained in the accident, he suffered a permanent disability of 71%, rendering him unfit to drive any vehicle and remained bedridden for a period of 12 months, incurring medical and ancillary expenses amounting to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Further, due to the severity of injuries, the claimant had to take the assistance of an attendant and also incurred transportation expenses. Therefore, the claimant contended that he is entitled to be granted just and fair compensation under various heads along with future prospects payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the offending lorry, along with interest and costs. 7. The 2nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying that the 1 st respondent was the owner and the 2 nd respondent as insurer of the offending vehicle. 7. The 2nd respondent–Insurance Company filed its counter denying that the 1 st respondent was the owner and the 2 nd respondent as insurer of the offending vehicle. It was further contended that, although the claimant did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent willfully and knowingly handed over the vehicle to him, and therefore, the 2 nd respondent was not liable to pay any compensation. It was also contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself, and that the compensation and interest claimed are excessive, and thus, the counsel for the insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition with costs. 8. Basing on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-28/TA 1998 by its rider? 2) Whether the claim petitioner is entitled for the compensation, if any? If so, to what amount and from which respondent? 3) To what relief? 9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence marked as Exs.A1 to A9 produced on behalf of the claimant, along with Ex.B1 (insurance policy) marked on behalf of the 2 nd respondent and Ex. X1 (Disability Certificate) marked through the Court, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the 1 st respondent and that as the offending vehicle was duly insured with the 2nd respondent, the liability was fixed on both respondents as jointly and severally. Considering the nature of the injuries sustained and the medical expenses incurred by the claimant towards treatment, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/-, along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition until realization, holding respondent Nos.1 and 2 as jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. 10. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation for permanent disability, despite the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and the Disability Certificate (Ex. X1) marked through the Court. 10. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant filed the instant appeal seeking enhancement. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding any compensation for permanent disability, despite the grievous injuries sustained by the claimant and the Disability Certificate (Ex. X1) marked through the Court. It was further submitted that the amounts awarded under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of earnings, attendant charges, and extra nourishment were meagre, and in view of the nature of the injuries and the duration of treatment, these amounts require enhancement. Additionally, it was contended that no amounts were awarded towards transportation, attendant charges, and thus prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurance company contended that the compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under various heads of medical expenses, pain and suffering, attendant charges, and extra nourishment is just and reasonable, and needs no interference, and thus, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 13. I have given earnest consideration to the submissions made on either side and perused the material on record. 14. Upon careful consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal categorically held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, and the same was validly insured with the 2nd respondent, which needs no interference. 15. Now, coming to the just and reasonable compensation which the claimant is entitled, the oral testimony of PWs.2 and 3, the Doctors, who treated the claimant, along with Ex.A3/medical certificate, establish that the claimant sustained eight grievous injuries, due to which, the claimant suffered permanent disability, which was assessed at 70% as per Ex.A9 Disability Certificate, which was marked as Ex.X1 through the Court, thereby rendered the claimant unable to continue his driving work. The Tribunal, while accepting the claim of the claimant suffering permanent disability, has awarded a fixed sum of only Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of future income, which accordingly, needs modification. 16. Although the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.500/- per day as an auto-trolley driver, no concrete evidence was provided regarding his actual earnings. In Malakappa vs The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. 16. Although the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.500/- per day as an auto-trolley driver, no concrete evidence was provided regarding his actual earnings. In Malakappa vs The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Another , 2025 INSC 590 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in the absence of any concrete evidence placed to substantiate the earnings, the notional income of Rs.8,000/- per month has to be taken. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to fix the claimant’s monthly income at Rs.8,000/- for calculating loss of earnings and grant of compensation for permanent disability. 17. As the claimant was 50 years old, 25% is to be added towards future prospects in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 which amounts to Rs.2,000/-. Thus, the monthly income of the claimant is assessed at Rs.10,000/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.2,000/-). Sincethe claimant is 50 years, applying the multiplier of 13, as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corp. , 2009 (6) SCC 121 , the total earnings works out to Rs.15,60,000/- (Rs.10,000/-×12×13). Thus, as the claimant sustained 70% permanent disability, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.10,92,000/- (Rs.15,60,000 × 70%). 18. In addition, as the claimant sustained eight grievous injuries, which resulted in permanent disability and underwent surgery, it is just and reasonable to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.15,000/- towards transportation. Although the claimant averred 12 months’ bed rest while claiming loss of earnings, the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 establishes that the claimant was advised to take six months’ bed rest and accordingly, Rs.48,000/- (Rs.8,000 × 6 months) is awarded towards loss of earnings. 19. Further, considering the grievous nature of injuries, surgeries undergone, and period of bed rest advised, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards attendant charges is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. However, in the light of Exs.A5, A6, A8 and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses incurred and Rs.45,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of implants. The amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is just and reasonable and requires no interference. 20. However, in the light of Exs.A5, A6, A8 and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the Tribunal has rightly granted Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses incurred and Rs.45,000/- towards future medical expenses for removal of implants. The amount of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards extra nourishment is just and reasonable and requires no interference. 20. In view of the above, the total compensation, to which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is as under: 21. Coming to the rate of interest, the rate of interest fixed by the Tribunal @ 7.5% per annum is in accordance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi ’s case (supra) and needs no interference. 22. Accordingly, the appeal is ALLOWED modifying Award passed by the Tribunal by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,75,000/- to Rs.15,45,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The injured/claimant is entitled to the said compensation amount, subject to payment of deficit Court Fee before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount along with accrued interest within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. Upon such deposit, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw half of the said amount along with accrued interest by filing an application, without furnishing any security, and the remaining, after a period of three years from the date of 1 st withdrawal. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.