Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 596 (TS)

Upaari Pushpalatha v. Pavan Traders

2025-05-02

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, J. This appeal is filed by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2475 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short “the Tribunal”). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 25.12.2014 at about 19:50 hours, the petitioner was going along with his relatives in an auto bearing No.AP-13-X-7151 and when they reached VACS Bakery, Road No.10, Jubilee Hills, one Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 proceeding in the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the auto from behind, as a result of which all the inmates of the auto including the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the auto turned turtle. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills and the petitioner took inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure. Therefore, she sought a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The respondents No.1 and 3 remained ex-parte. 5. The Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident and contended that there was complete negligence of both the vehicles and therefore, the owner and insurer of the auto are also necessary parties. They further denied the age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner and further denied the medical expenses also. It is further contended that the driver of the car did not bear a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the pleaded accident dated 25.12.2014 has occurred owning to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-0027 and whether the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident? 2. Whether crime vehicle No.AP-09-CP-0027 was owned by the first respondent and insured with second respondent as on the date of accident and whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief ?” 7. 2. Whether crime vehicle No.AP-09-CP-0027 was owned by the first respondent and insured with second respondent as on the date of accident and whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,23,400/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation, inspite of the evidence available on record. He further argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability of the petitioner and failed to appreciate the evidence adduced with regard to disability sustained by the petitioner and further failed to award future prospects. He further submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the alleged disability of the petitioner is not proved before the Tribunal and that the Doctor who issued the Disability Certificate has never treated the petitioner and he is not a member of the District Medical Board. Further, the said disability Certificate is issued after three years of the accident and thus, the said Certificate is not reliable. He further submitted that the Tribunal has granted just compensation and therefore, prayed to uphold the same. 12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination:- 1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ? 2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any interference ? 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1: a) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and has undergone inpatient treatment at Apollo Hospital and has incurred huge medical expenditure and is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. 3. To what relief ? 13. Point No.1: a) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries and has undergone inpatient treatment at Apollo Hospital and has incurred huge medical expenditure and is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. In support of her case, she filed Ex.A3/Injury Certificate issued by the Apollo Hospital, which discloses that she sustained; A transverse laceration over right cheek 5 cm x 1 cm, Fracture maxilla and zygoma of right side, Nasal bone fracture. b) Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospital, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained injuries in a Road Traffic Accident and that the petitioner was admitted on 26.12.2014 and was discharged on 29.12.2014. The injuries are stated to be Conscious, oriented Afebrile, Right upper eye lid + Transverses laceration across right cheek to neurological area, Depression right malar region, Restricted mouth opening, Nasal bleed + Occlusion normal and that she was treated for the said injuries through debridement done for fracture of Maxilla and zygoma, reduced and placed in position, Nasal bone fracture was reduced and stabilized. She filed medical bills under Ex.A5 to an extent of Rs.1,33,011/- and further another bill of Rs.23,150/- is also filed, issued by the Apollo Hospital. The said bill cannot be considered, because it is prior to the accident. There are two other medical bills issued by the Pharmacy at Apollo Hospital for purchase of medicines. c) She has also filed Disability Certificate issued by PW2 under Ex.A6, it reveals that 50% disability sustained by the petitioner which is partial permanent in nature, and injuries are shown to be fracture of Maxilla zygoma and Nasal Bone Fracture. d) It is her further contention that she sustained disability and filed Disability Certificate under Ex.A6. She got examined PW2/Dr.Ch. Sulapani who issued the Disability Certificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 shows that the petitioner sustained 50% disability which is partial permanent in nature and the nature of injuries sustained are mentioned as multiple injuries over temporal scalp, forehead, eyebrow, eyelid, left cheek and chin. The Disability Certificate further does not disclose the nature of disability and to which part of the body is the disability affected. A perusal of Ex.A6 shows that the petitioner sustained 50% disability which is partial permanent in nature and the nature of injuries sustained are mentioned as multiple injuries over temporal scalp, forehead, eyebrow, eyelid, left cheek and chin. The Disability Certificate further does not disclose the nature of disability and to which part of the body is the disability affected. It is elicited in his evidence that he runs a hospital at Vanasthalipuram and he issued the disability certificate as he has examined her physically and saw that there is disfigurement of face which causes discomfort and shyness when she mingles with others and that due to the above said problem, there is a probability of developing inferiority complex. In his cross examination he has admitted that he has never treated the petitioner and for the first time, the petitioner came to him on 20.09.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that the accident occurred in the year 2014. She has approached the Doctor/PW2 after three years for obtaining the Disability Certificate. e) It is borne out by the medical record that she was inpatient for three days and the nature of treatment underwent by her also does not suggest the gravity of injuries to result in 50% disability. It is further revealed from the nature of treatment given at the Apollo Hospital that she sustained injuries on the face and wound debridement was done and a collagen dressing was done over the debrided abrasions. The nature of injuries as deposed by PW2 also do not suggest any disability. Moreover he says that she may develop inferiority complex in future and thus he has assessed the disability to 50%. f) The said evidence of PW2 does not convince this Court to hold it to be reliable. The evidence of PW2 is not convincing and the disability as mentioned in Ex.A6 also does not speak about the details of the disability and the nexus with the injuries. Therefore, the Tribunal has not considered the Disability Certificate while awarding the compensation. The said decision of Tribunal is opined to be just and reasonable and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However the Tribunal has taken all the other components into consideration and has awarded reasonable compensation. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Therefore, the Tribunal has not considered the Disability Certificate while awarding the compensation. The said decision of Tribunal is opined to be just and reasonable and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. However the Tribunal has taken all the other components into consideration and has awarded reasonable compensation. g) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited , [(2011) 12 SCC 236] , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken. In the present case the petitioner is working as beautician and was earning an amount of Rs.10,000/-. Thus, on a reasonable hypothesis, the income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month which is just and reasonable. h) Under the head pain and suffering, since she suffered fracture injuries in the face, it is opined that Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering would be just and reasonable. i) The Tribunal has considered all the components and has awarded reasonable compensation under the heads of loss of earnings, transport, extra-nourishment, medical expenses. However, it is opined that the compensation granted for pain and suffering can be enhanced to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in view of the injuries sustained by her, while the Tribunal has granted Rs.75,000/-. Therefore, the compensation that is awarded to an extent of Rs.3,23,400/- is enhanced by Rs.25,000/- amounting to Rs.3,48,400/-. j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs. 3,48,400/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,23,400/-. Thus, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need interference with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.3,48,400/- from that of Rs.3,23,400/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. 15. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.06.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2475 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,23,400/- to 3,48,400/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.