Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 421 (TS)

Ch. Ratna Raju v. Kamble Jagadishwar Rao

2025-04-25

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014, dated 29.01.2020, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.06.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.1873 of 2014 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata Ace Vehicle. It is contended that on 22.06.2014, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BM-3200 and when they reached near Prashanth Nagar Bus Stop, the driver of Tata Ace Vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Prime Hospital, Kukatpally. The Police registered a case in Crime No.428 of 2014 against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle. 3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of left little finger metacarpal, crush injury to left hand palm, polytrauma with facial injury to left upper limb, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body and petitioner was completely bed ridden and lost his job and also incurred huge expenditure and claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/-under various heads as compensation for the said accident. 4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 – Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Tata Ace Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. 5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of Tata Ace bearing No.AP-28-TB-7778, causing injuries to the petitioner? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief? 6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,04,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. 7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that the petitioner was working as Pastor in a Church and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner lost his job and was unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that claimants has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs.2,04,000/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) Fracture of left little finger metacarpal. ii) Crush injury to left hand palm. iii) Poly trauma with facial. iv) Injury to left upper lim. v) Head injury. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner also got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW2 and it is evident from the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was treated for the injury of his left little finger and other injures, PW2 also arrived the disability of the petitioner approximately 10% and contended that due to said disability there shall be restricted movements on the left hand, weak grips in the hands and the petitioner will face difficulty in driving the vehicles and further contended that petitioner was admitted into the Prime Hospital on 22.06.2014 and discharged on 25.06.2014. Ex.A4 is discharge summary issued by the hospital. Ex.A3 is Medico legal record which shows that the petitioner received one grievous injury and one simple injury of abrasion on face. Ex.A6 revels that the hospital charged bill of Rs.73,974/- for Hospitalization. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earning, but the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.20,000/- and also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony, and awarded Rs.2,04,000/- in total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 12. Heard Sri K.Harimohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on record. 13. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondent No.1 and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on 22.06.2014. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Paster in the Church and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was working as Pastor in the Church and drawing a Salary of Rs.10,000/-. Point No.1 14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on 22.06.2014. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Paster in the Church and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was working as Pastor in the Church and drawing a Salary of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has presumed that petitioner might have taken rest for two months due to said accident and estimated Rs.20,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month towards ‘loss of earnings’, The Hon’ble Suprme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar , 2001(8) SCC 197 , where it is stated that in the absence of such documentary proof with regard to income of the petitioner and where there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation is granted by the Learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which appear to be fair and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. As per Ex.A3 the petitioner received one simple and one grievous injury. Ex.A5 is a disability certificate issued by PW2 stating that of 10% disability of left hand, however there is no mention in the Ex.A5 as to the disability whether it is of permanent in nature or partial, hence this Court cannot take into account the Ex.A5 for assessing the compensation towards future prospects. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards simple injury and Rs.10,000/- towards the grievous injury, which this Court feel the said amount granted by the learned Tribunal needs no interference, however, with regard to pain and sufferance, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which appears to be meager and this Court enhances the said amount of Rs.20,000/- to Rs.35,000/-. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of ‘damages to clothing and articles’, admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation under the head of ‘damage to clothing and articles’. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of ‘damages to clothing and articles’, admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation under the head of ‘damage to clothing and articles’. As per Ex.A6, the petitioner spent Rs.73,974/- towards hospital bill and Ex.A5, estimation letter towards future surgery for reducing the bulk on the left hand, and the Tribunal granted Rs.73,974/- towards Medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards surgery, which is not disputed by both the respondent No.2, hence no interference required. 15. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference. Head Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Medical Expenses Rs.73,974/- Rs.73,974/- Loss of earning for two months Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/- Transportation Charges Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- One Simple Injury Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- One Grievous Injury Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/- 35,000/- Extra Nourishment Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/- Surgery Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Damages to cloths & articles - Rs.2,000/- Total Rs.2,03,974/- Rounded to Rs. 2,04,000/- Rs.2,20,974/- 16. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the petition, and this Court is granting 9% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,03,974/- to Rs.2,20,974/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Rupees only) with the interest of 9% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.