Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 193 (TS)

Bhushapaka Venkateshwarlu v. Kalu Gurjar

2025-04-01

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Laxmi Narayana Alishetty, J. Heard Sri C.M.Prakash, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner and Sri K.Vasanth Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3-insurance company. 2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in MVOP No.761 of 2016, dated 27.06.2024 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation. 3. Appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein is respondent No.1-driver of the crime vehicle, respondent No.2 herein is the owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.3 herein is the respondent No.3-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under: 4.1. On 20.06.2016 at about 00.30 a.m., the petitioner along with his relative was returning to Bhongir from Mandapuram village on their motor cycle bearing No.AP-24-AQ-4037, and while the petitioner was riding the motor cycle cautiously on extreme left side of the road, and when they reached Hanumanpuram Bus stop, due to dazzling lights of the opposite coming vehicle, the petitioner dashed a stationed lorry bearing registration No.RJ-GB-2757 (hereinafter referred to as crime vehicle), which was parked without taking precautionary measures, without blinking parking lights, as a result, the occupants of the motorcycle fell and sustained multiple and fracture injuries. Immediately, petitioner was shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir, and from there, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and admitted as inpatient and underwent an operation for the fracture of his clavicle bone. 4.2. The Police, Bhongir Rural Police Station registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2016 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle. 4.3. It is further averred that petitioner was hale and healthy and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by working as Home Guard and used to contribute the same to his family; that due to the accident, he suffered a lot of pain and suffering, and become a permanently disabled; that he spent Rs.50,000/- towards medical and allied expenses and underwent follow-up treatment in private hospitals. 4.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the crime vehicle, which was insured with the respondent No.3-insurance company and, therefore, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. 4.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent parking of the crime vehicle, which was insured with the respondent No.3-insurance company and, therefore, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. 5. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, avocation, treatment taken and earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.3 further contended that the accident had occurred due to negligent driving of the petitioner, who was not having a valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle and it is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle was also not having valid driving licence and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the road accident due to negligent parking of lorry bearing No.RJ-27-GB-2757, without taking any precautionary measures? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? 3) To what relief? 7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, no witness was examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1 and attested copy of charge sheet was marked as Ex.C1 through Advocate-Commissioner. 8. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of the material and evidence placed on record, fixed the liability of negligence and contributory negligence at the ratio of 50:50 against the petitioner and the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 9. The learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. 9. The learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence and documents produced by the petitioner; that due to the accident, petitioner received as many as 14 injuries and has become permanently disabled, however, the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount. He further contended that Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for functional disability and permanent disability so also the pain and suffering, loss of income, medical expenses etc. and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation. 10. Learned counsel for appellant/petitioner placed reliance on the following decisions in support of his contention. i) New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Visakhapatnam v Munagada Chinni Kumari and others , 2013 (3) ALD 58 ; and ii) Jumani Begam v. Ram Narayan and others, 2020 (1) ALD 113 (SC) 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3- 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: 12. With regard to non-awarding of compensation for the grievous injuries is concerned, perusal of the record would disclose that on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.2-Dr.P.Praveen, who was working as Assistant Professor at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, was examined. According to P.W.2, petitioner received the following injuries in a road accident: 1) Multiple abrasion, head injury, knee joint injury, bleeding from the nose and blood vomiting; 2) 3x3 cms abrasion in (L) temporal region; 3) Bleed from Ear+(L) 4) 8x6 cms abrasion over the (L) Cheek 5) 1x1x0, 5 cm laceration over (L) 6) 5X4 cm abrasion over (L) shoulder 7) 7x5 cm abrasion over (L) upper arm 8) Patterned scratches over (L) upper chest 9) Contusion over the epigastria region and (L) paternal region 10) Abrasion 2 x 2 cm above the (L) arm 11) Abrasion 2x2 cm (R) knee joint 12) (L) foot02nd toenail avenged great toe skin at the tip 13) Blocking of lower eyelid (L) eye 14) Blunt injury abdomen 13. P.W.2 further deposed that during the treatment, petitioner underwent emergency exploratory laparotomy and abjel (spong) over the splenic laceration and L flant drain under general anesthesia and further deposed that the surgery was grievous and in the cross- examination, he admitted that the external injuries are simple in nature and internal injuries are grievous in nature. He further deposed that Ex.C1-case sheet and Ex.A5-medical certificate issued by the Gandhi Hospital. 14. From the evidence of the P.W.2, and material placed on record and as per Ex.C1-case sheet and Ex.A5-medical certificate issued by the Gandhi Hospital, petitioner sustained multiple internal and external injuries, and according to P.W.2, external injuries are simple in nature, however, internal injuries are grievous in nature. In the light of above discussion, it appears that petitioner suffered multiple simple and grievous injuries besides fracture injuries and there is need of frequent medical checkup and continuous treatment for the injuries sustained by the petitioner. However, the Tribunal, without considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of P.W.2 and material Ex.C1 and Ex.A5, declined to award any amount towards future treatment and medical expenses on the ground that the petitioner was treated in Gandhi Hospital. In the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, it cannot be said that petitioner does not require future treatment. 15. In view of the above discussion, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner and considering the severity of injuries and the need for future medical treatment, this Court is of the considered view that petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards future treatment and medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.25,000/- towards simple injuries and thus, petitioner is entitled to total amount of Rs.75,000/- towards injuries and the same needs to be awarded to the above extent. In view of multiple grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner, he is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. 16. With regard to the loss income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income for the period of treatment taken by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he suffered disability and unable to do any work. 16. With regard to the loss income of the petitioner, the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of income for the period of treatment taken by the petitioner on the ground that petitioner has not produced any evidence to show that he suffered disability and unable to do any work. Perusal of the record would disclose that, according to petitioner, he was working as Home Guard and earning Rs.20,000/- per month. In Ex.A3-C.C. of Form No.54 and Ex.A4-C.C. of charge sheet, the occupation of the petitioner was mentioned as Home Guard. In considered opinion of this Court, Rs.10,000/- can be taken as monthly income of the petitioner. Further, taking consideration that the petitioner, who suffered grievous injuries would have suffered loss of earnings during the laid-up period for at least three months, therefore, petitioner is entitled to for a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 3). 17. Insofar as the contributory negligence is concerned, the Tribunal fixed the contributory negligence at the ratio of 50:50 against the petitioner and the driver of the crime vehicle by observing that the petitioner dashed the stationed crime vehicle, which was parked in the middle of the road without any precautionary measures negligently and that the petitioner was driving the motorcycle without a licence and took the risk of sustaining the grievous injuries. 18. It is apt to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Jumani Begam (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that once the substantive evidence before the MACT established that the truck trailer had been parked on the road at night without any reflectors, there was no reason or justification for the MACT to proceed on the basis of conjecture in arriving at a finding of contributory negligence. In the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the driver of crime vehicle has taken all the precautions indicating parking of the crime vehicle on a road and suitable precautions were taken in the form of reflectors etc., to avoid any accident. Therefore, fixing liability on the part of petitioner in the form of contributory negligence is erroneous and thus, unsustainable and the same needs to be set aside. Conclusion: 19. Therefore, fixing liability on the part of petitioner in the form of contributory negligence is erroneous and thus, unsustainable and the same needs to be set aside. Conclusion: 19. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 Future medical expenses Rs.50,000/- 2 Injuries Rs.75,000/- 3 Loss of income Rs.30,000/- 4 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- 5 Extra nourishment and attendant charges Rs.30,000/- Total compensation to be paid: Rs.2,35,000/- 20. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.2,35,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate 9% awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 to 3 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.