Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 629 (TS)

R. Rama Rao v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd

2025-05-02

B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

body2025
JUDGMENT : B.R. MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in MVOP.No.707 of 2015, dated 27.05.2022, the claimant has filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. It is stated in the claim petition that the claim petitioner is working in Military Engineering Services as Electrician for the past 7 years and drawing a salary of Rs.28,000/- per month. On 19.09.2013, while the petitioner was returning from Tummukunta Village to his house at Bollaram on his motor-cycle bearing Hero-Honda CBZ vide Registration No.AP-29-B-2133, when he reached Vyjayanthi Petrol Pump at Tummukunta Village, suddenly a car bearing Registration No.AP-09-BU-0189 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side and dashed the petitioner on the left side, ran on the motor-bike. Due to the sudden impact, the petitioner was thrown off from the motor-bike. The driver of the Indica car has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner due to which his right leg got crushed and fractured. Petitioner was taken to Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad from there for better treatment he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd., (KIMS) at Minister Road, Secunderabad and he underwent emergency surgery. He was admitted in the Hospital for 10 days and thereafter he was discharged. The Orthopedic Surgeon has certified that the extent of disability is 30% permanent and issued certificate to that effect on 18.08.2014. Petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.10,00,000/-. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. Respondent No.3 filed his counter and contended that contributory negligence cannot be ruled out and the petitioner should furnish the registration certificate of the vehicle of which he was riding along with driving license to prove that he has not violated any provisions of the Motor-Vehicles Act. The compensation claimed by the petitioner is imaginary and disproportionate and it is on the higher side. Without producing documents, no compensation can be awarded to the petitioner. 5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 19.09.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No. AP 09/BU 0189? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation for injuries sustained? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 5. The learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 19.09.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Car bearing No. AP 09/BU 0189? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation for injuries sustained? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 6. Claim petitioner is examined as PW.1, got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and also examined PWs.2 and 3, got marked Ex.X1 through PW.3. Respondent No.3 did not choose to lead evidence but marked Ex.B1-Insurance Policy. 7. The Tribunal after going through the evidence and documents awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of pleasure of amenities of life. In total the Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to pay the amount jointly and severally with costs. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has wrongly arrived at a conclusion and awarded Rs.3,00,000/- against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal has not considered the disability of the petitioner in toto and could not have rejected the claim of future prospects of the injured. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal ought not to have taken notional earning of the injured in computing the compensation in fact which ought to have granted Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal has failed to award compensation on different heads as claimed by the claim petitioner and prayed to allow the O.P. as prayed in the claim petition. 9. Notice to respondent No.2 is served but he failed to appear. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3 submits that the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and there is no perversity in the order. Transportation, attendant and extra-nourishment charges can be granted in addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant/claim petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation? 13. The Appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. Transportation, attendant and extra-nourishment charges can be granted in addition to the award passed by the Tribunal. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Now the point for consideration is whether the appellant/claim petitioner is entitled for just and reasonable compensation? 13. The Appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. The evidence of the claimant is that he was drawing an amount of Rs.28,000/- per month as on the date of accident i.e., 19.09.2013 and he took treatment at KIMS Hospital and underwent surgery and that he obtained Handicap certificate from Gandhi Medical College/Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad under Ex.A7 on 18.08.2014 and the extent of disability is 30% permanent. In his cross-examination, he stated that all the medical bills incurred by him were reimbursed by the employer. Claimant denied the suggestion that Exs.A6, A7, A8 are fabricated for the purpose of the case. 14. The Tribunal failed to note that the gross salary of the appellant/claimant for the month of September, 2013 (Ex.A8) is Rs.27,048/- and total deductions are Rs.10,564/- and take home salary is Rs.16,484/-. The Tribunal has also not considered Ex.A7 disability certificate which is issued by the Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein the extent of disability is shown as 30% permanent. Though the claimant has not examined any person to prove the same but the evidence of PW.3, who treated the claimant deposed that the claimant came to the Emergency Department on 19.09.2023 with the following injuries (1) closed comminuted displaced fracture mid shaft right femur (2) compound comminuted DISTAL 1/3 both bones right leg with crush injury. Both are grievous in nature and he was operated on emergency basis with (1) wound debridement right leg with external fixation of ankle (2) IMIL nailing right femur on 19.09.2013 on the same day. He was again operated with wound debridement + SSG on 24.09.2013 and the patient was discharged on 28.09.2013 in stable condition, he was walking with the help of walker till 06.11.2013 and he was again admitted in the Hospital on the same day and operated with. On 16.11.2013, external fixation, removal + distal, tibia plating + fubula, rush nail + bone grafting was done and was discharged on 16.11.2013 in stable condition. On 16.11.2013, external fixation, removal + distal, tibia plating + fubula, rush nail + bone grafting was done and was discharged on 16.11.2013 in stable condition. As fracture shaft femur was not having he was again admitted in the Hospital on 26.06.2014 and bone grafting surgery was done on 27.06.2014. He was able to work and do his activities though his limb is short around 20 inches and he need further surgery for implant removal and it may cost Rs.1,00,000/-. 15. PW.3 denied the suggestion that the patient has no shorting of right leg. He further stated in the cross-examination that patient can walk presently without walker and the summary sheet is marked as Ex.X1. 16. It is to be noted here that the claimant was promoted in the year 2016 and his salary is Rs.32,000/-. Appellant/claimant is a Government Employee, there will not be any loss of earnings from 19.09.2013 to 31.12.2013. The Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts of the case in awarding just compensation to the appellant. The monthly salary of the appellant is taken as Rs.16,484/- per month and the appellant is aged about 48 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘13’ and as per Ex.A7 the disability is 30% permanent. 17. The Apex Court in T.J.Parameshwarappa Alias Parameshwarappa Alias J.T. Parameshwarappa Alias Talalkena Gowdra Parameshwarappa and Others Vs. Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and Others , [(2022) 17 Supreme Court Cases 51] , has formulated the principles for assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disability. Keeping in view the above principles and the evidence of PW.3, this Court assess the whole body disability at 20%. 18. The determination of the compensation is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Amount awarded 1. Monthly Income Rs.16,484/ - 2. Annual Income Rs.1,97,808/ - ( 16,484 x 12) 3. Multiplier ‘13’ As per Smt .Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) Rs.25,71,504/ - 1,97,808/ - X 13 4. Disability (at 20% ) Rs.5,14,300/ - 25,71,504/ - x 20% 5. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/ - 6. Loss of pleasure Rs.1,00,000/ - 7. Transport charges Rs.10,000/ - 8. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/ - Total Rs.7,34,300 / - 19. The above said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anjali and Others Vs. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,00,000/ - 6. Loss of pleasure Rs.1,00,000/ - 7. Transport charges Rs.10,000/ - 8. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/ - Total Rs.7,34,300 / - 19. The above said amount shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anjali and Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod and Others , [2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683] 20. Accordingly, Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part as under : (i) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3,00,000/- is enhanced to Rs.7,34,300/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. (ii) Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount with costs and interest less the amount already deposited within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. (iii) Appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest and costs without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. No costs.