Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 349 (TS)

Pilli Savitha v. Mirz Sadiq Baig

2025-04-17

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 18.09.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.735 of 2016, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-(VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereunder and whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs.1,51,300/- with interest @7.5% interest. 2. Heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. None appears for respondent No.1. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 4. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2016 at about 1:30 PM, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, which was driven by one Sainath, and when they reached on the outskirts of Pothangal Village, in the meanwhile a Car bearing No.AP- 01-TV-0211 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of which, the claimant fell down and the front wheel of Car ran over her. Due to which, the claimant sustained fracture to her both legs, both knees, injuries on head, chest and other parts of the body. Immediately, after the accident, the claimant was shifted to RR Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad, where she underwent operation twice and steel rods were inserted and she incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. She further submitted that she was hale and healthy prior to the accident and earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. After the accident, she is unable to move from the bed, cannot walk and attend her regular duties. She also sustained 100% permanent disability due to the said accident. She further stated that the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car belonging to the respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.2 and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to her. 5. Respondent No.1 filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation, incurring of medical expenses etc. 5. Respondent No.1 filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation, incurring of medical expenses etc. He further stated that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 is having valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, he prays to dismiss the claimant petition against him. 6. Respondent No.2 also filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accident, age, avocation earning capacity, negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car. He further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the claim made by the claimant is excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the petition against him. 7. Before the Tribunal, claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.12. P.W.1 also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 who treated him at R.R. Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, except marked Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy. 8. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding the accident and the involvement of the vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP-01-TV-0211 in the said accident, belonging to respondent No.1, which was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of said Car. The only grievance of the appellant-clamant before this Court is that the compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. 9. Having heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, the point which arose for consideration before this Court is “ The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant-claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation or not?” 10. After going into the entire material placed on record and after hearing parties concerned, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant- claimant. After going into the entire material placed on record and after hearing parties concerned, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and accordingly, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant- claimant. Being aggrieved by the award and unsatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant-claimant preferred this appeal. 11. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizambad and from there, she was shifted to R.R. Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad, where she underwent operation twice and steel rods were inserted, for which she incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenditure. She further deposed that prior to the accident she was earning an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. Due to the accident she sustained 100% permanent disability and she is unable to move from the bed, cannot walk and attend her regular duties. Ex.A.3 is the medical certificate and Ex.A.4 is the discharge summary, which shows that on 12.11.2016 the claimant underwent operation on 15.11.2016 and discharged on 28.11.2018. Ex.A.5, is the medical record of physiotherapy and Ex.A.6 is the hospital bill for Rs.49,800/- issued by R.R. Lifeline Hospital, which show that the claimant admitted in the hospital and discharged from the said hospital. 12. To prove the case of the claimant, she also examined P.W.2-Dr.K.Ramesh, working as orthopaedic Surgeon in R.R. Lifeline Hospital, Nizamabad. He deposed that on 12.11.2016 the claimant came to his hospital and on examination he found the following injuries 1) Swelling and deformity left knee corresponding x ray shows communited fracture left patella, 2) Swelling and deformity right knee corresponding X ray shows communited fracture right patella. He deposed that the above two injuries are grievous in nature and he conducted surgery to the claimant on 15.11.2016 and patella was removed in left knee. Open reduction internal fixation with patella K wires intention band wiring was done in right patell. The claimant was discharged on 20.11.2016 with an advice of six weeks bed rest with medication. Exs.A.12 and A.13 were issued by their hospital. The record further revealed that the above two injuries are grievous in nature and he doctors conducted surgery on 15.11.2016 and patella was removed in left knee. The claimant was discharged on 20.11.2016 with an advice of six weeks bed rest with medication. Exs.A.12 and A.13 were issued by their hospital. The record further revealed that the above two injuries are grievous in nature and he doctors conducted surgery on 15.11.2016 and patella was removed in left knee. Open reduction internal fixation with patella K wires intention band wiring was done in right patella. The patient was discharged on 20.11.2016 with an advice of six weeks bed rest with medication. He further deposed that in the event of removal of implant, the claimant required Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure for surgery. Ex.A10 is photographs showing the injuries sustained by the claimant. A perusal of Ex.B.1 and Ex.A.11 show that the insurance policy issued in the name of respondent No.1, owner of crime car and it is valid from 30.01.2016 to mid night of 29.01.2017 and the accident has occurred on 11.11.2016. 13. Prior to the accident, the claimant is working as an agriculturist and labour and used to earn an amount of Rs.20,000/- per month. She is also having Ac-0-21 guntas of land in her name and in prove of the same she filed Ex.A.9 pattadar passbook. Due to the injuries, she is not unable to work. The Tribunal has taken earnings of the claimant @ Rs.5,000/- per month and in view of injuries, she must have taken two months bed rest and awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings. Admittedly, she is a labour and owning Ac.0-21 guntas of agricultural land. Considering the nature of the occupation of the claimant, the notional income which is taken by the Tribunal cannot be find fault. But, the Tribunal has taken two months bed rest and granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- which appears to be meagre for the reason that admittedly the appellant sustained injuries to both knees and legs and as such it cannot be expected that the appellant would have recovered within two months. Therefore, considering the ground realities and also taking into consideration the nature of accident, this Court opines that the claimant might have suffered not only for six months she might have also taken treatment for six months. Hence, taking said aspect into consideration, this Court granted six months as bed rest to the claimant and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-( Rs.5,000 x 6) towards loss of earnings. 14. Hence, taking said aspect into consideration, this Court granted six months as bed rest to the claimant and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/-( Rs.5,000 x 6) towards loss of earnings. 14. Coming to transportation, as seen from the record, the appellant is a labourer and residing in Bardipur Village, Nizamabad District and she has to take treatment in Lifeline Hospital at Nizamabad. Obviously considering the nature of injuries received by her, she would have engaged any transport vehicle and it may be an Auto or a Car, for which she would have incurred some income. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, in view of this Court, which needs interference by this Court. This Court considering the ground realities, awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment. 15. Coming to the aspect of medical expenses, as there is no grievance regarding the medical expenses granted by the Tribunal, this Court is the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly granted medical expenses, which needs no interference by this Court. Coming to the aspect of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. According to P.W.2, the appellant sustained two grievous injuries. Taking the said evidence into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to an additional amount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering i.e., total amount comes to Rs.60,000/- S. No. Name of Head Awarded by Tribunal Rs. Awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Los earnings. 10,000 20,000 2. Transportation charges 4,000 6,000 3. Extra nourishment 3,000 7,000 4. Medical expenses 49,800 5. Pain and suffering 30,000 30,000 6. Medical bills under Ex.A.8 54,500 TOTAL 1,51,300-00 63,000-00 16 . In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,51,300/- to Rs.2,14,300/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. The respondents shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months (minus already deposited amount) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.