Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 868 (TS)

Ailneni Purushotham Rao v. Shaik Mohinodhin

2025-06-10

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 29.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.74 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, Jagtial (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 16.11.2007 at 8:00 p.m., while the petitioner was going from Chelgal Village to Mothe Village on Motor Bike bearing No.AP-15-B-9756 and when he was passing by the road in front of the house of Ex-Sarpanch of Chelgal village, one Tractor bearing No.AP-15-X-5857 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came in opposite direction, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained fracture injuries. He underwent treatment and incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parte. 5. The respondent No.3-TSRTC filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner. He further contended that the driver of the tractor did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that the vehicle does not have an effective R.C and thus the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident was caused on Motor Vehicle Accident on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-15-X-5857 by respondent No.1? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 to 4 and Exs.P1 to P90 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 and 2 got examined and Exs.R1 to R3 were marked. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,52,354/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 10. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.5,52,354/- Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this appeal. 9. Heard the submissions of Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and weight of evidence and that the petitioner was running a Water Servicing Centre and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has assessed the earnings of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.5,000/-. He further argued that the petitioner has sustained 74% of disability, but the Tribunal has erroneously taken it as 45% for assessing the loss of earning capacity and that the Tribunal has not added future prospects and has awarded meagre amounts under various heads. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Tribunal has passed orders with good reasoning and that proof of income is not filed by the petitioner and even in the absence of proof, the Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.5,000/- which is fair enough and therefore, has prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal. 11.1 Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determination:- 1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference? 3. To what relief? 12. Point No.1: a) The petitioner has stated that he suffered grievous injuries in the accident. Ex.P4 is the Injury Certificate filed by the petitioner, it is issued by the Duty Medical Officer, Government Area Hospital, Jagtial on 20.11.2007. It discloses that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., one lacerated wound on the scalp and contusion on the left leg, fracture of tibia. The discharge summary of Yashoda Hospital is filed under Ex.P64 which reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 09.01.2008 and discharged on 11.01.2008. It discloses that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., one lacerated wound on the scalp and contusion on the left leg, fracture of tibia. The discharge summary of Yashoda Hospital is filed under Ex.P64 which reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 09.01.2008 and discharged on 11.01.2008. A perusal of the said Discharge Summary reveals that the petitioner met with an accident on 16.11.2007 at Karimnagar and was admitted, wherein he was diagnosed to have sustained diffused brain injury, facial laceration, right frontal, right temporal and right parietal contusion, posterior interhemipheric bleed and fracture of right temporoparietal bone and fracture of upper end left tibia and that the petitioner was treated conservatively for brain injury and surgery was done on 05.12.2007 to treat the fracture of left tibia. Thereafter, the petitioner approached Yashoda Hospital with complaints of increased restlessness, loss of appetite, decreased sleep and swelling over left knee. Thus at Yashoda Hospital, he was diagnosed with Posttraumatic Organic Psychosis and Organic Delirium and he was treated for the same. b) Final Bill of Yashoda Hospital filed under Ex.P65 discloses that he was charged with Rs.15,021/-. Several medical bills are filed under Exs.P6 to P87 for a total amount of Rs. 1,41,354/-. Medical prescriptions are also filed from Ex.P69 to P81 in support of the said bills. These prescriptions pertain to different dates showing that the petitioner went for follow up treatment to Yashoda Hospital on different dates in the years 2008 and 2009. In all the prescriptions, his complaint of Posttraumatic Psychosis is being mentioned. Diagnostic reports, prescriptions as well as the CT Scan reports are all filed by the petitioner to prove the nature of injuries and the treatment underwent by him. The disability certificate is filed under Ex.P88 issued by the District Medical Board which discloses that the petitioner suffered 74% disability in relation to the left lower limb impaired reach and sub type of disability is mentioned as posttraumatic sequel limbs. b) PW1 asserted that he is an Agriculturist and also used to run Vehicle Servicing Station and he got examined PW4 in support of his contention. It is elicited from the evidence of PW4/Alineni Surender Rao that he issued Ex.P90. b) PW1 asserted that he is an Agriculturist and also used to run Vehicle Servicing Station and he got examined PW4 in support of his contention. It is elicited from the evidence of PW4/Alineni Surender Rao that he issued Ex.P90. A perusal of Ex.P90 reveals that the petitioner has taken the Premises No.3-6-14, Karimnagar Road on Lease from C. Hari Prasad Rao and established Deepika Auto Servicing Centre and that he has sold the said Auto Servicing Centre to the petitioner herein and has expressed No Objection for transferring the power supply into the name of the petitioner, the said exhibit is dated 17.11.2006. c) He further deposed that after buying the Servicing Centre, the petitioner had run it only for one year and after the accident, he stopped running this Auto Servicing Centre. In his cross examination it is elicited that while he was running the Auto Servicing Centre, he used to engage the services of three workers and used to pay Rs.8,000/- per month and that they have good business as there are only three Servicing Centres in Jagtial Town. Thus, by taking the evidence of PW4 into consideration the Tribunal has assessed the income of the petitioner to be Rs.5,000/- per month which appears to be just and reasonable. d) A perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.60,000/- towards loss of earnings for 12 months i.e., (Rs.5,000 x 12) which appears to be justified. The Tribunal has also considered the medical bills filed under Ex.P6 to P87 and has awarded an amount of Rs.1,41,354/- . But the petitioner must have incurred some additional expenditure with regard to transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges and other incidental expenses. The record reveals that he has been visiting Yashoda Hospital at different intervals as an outpatient for about a period of two years. Considering the same the additional expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- is granted under this head. e) The nature of injuries and the treatment underwent by the petitioner is discussed supra. The record reveals that he has been visiting Yashoda Hospital at different intervals as an outpatient for about a period of two years. Considering the same the additional expenditure of Rs. 1,00,000/- is granted under this head. e) The nature of injuries and the treatment underwent by the petitioner is discussed supra. Keeping in view the fracture injuries suffered by the petitioner i.e., fracture of upper end of tibia resulting in 74% of disability and diffuse brain injury which resulted in Posttraumatic Psychosis, it is opined that the petitioner must have undergone acute pain and suffering during the course of his treatment as inpatient and also in his continued spells of treatment as on outpatient. Therefore, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. f) In light of the decision of Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar , (2011) 10 SCC 343 , the disability suffered by the petitioner has to be scaled down to that of whole body and then the loss of earnings has to be assessed by the Tribunal. In the present case the Disability Certificate under Ex.P88 reveals that the petitioner has sustained 74% disability and the Tribunal has assessed the loss of earnings to be 45% which is found to be just and proper and has applied the right multiplier of ‘13’ for his age group. Since it is revealed that he is aged ‘40’ years and thus has granted an amount of Rs.3,51,000/- towards loss of future earnings i.e., (5,000 x 12)= 60,000/- x 45/100 x 13 and the same is found to be justified. Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- towards additional expenditure and Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is awarded in additional to the compensation granted by the Tribunal. g) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: S. No. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. 1. Compensation under the head injuries, shock, Pain and suffering 1,00,000/- 2. Compensation of loss of earnings 60,000/- 3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 3,51,000/- 4. Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 2,41,354/- Total 7,52,354/- h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.7,52,354/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.5,52,354/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 2,41,354/- Total 7,52,354/- h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.7,52,354/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.5,52,354/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, the order and decree of the Tribunal are modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,52,354/- to Rs.7,52,354/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14 . POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 29.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.74 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, Jagtial, enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,52,354/- to Rs.7,52,354/- 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. The respondent No.3 is 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. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed.