Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 869 (TS)

Kammari Sattaiah Satyam v. Shalk Mahaboob

2025-06-10

TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

body2025
JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (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 04.03.2015 the petitioner along with his daughter was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No.AP-25-H-1476 and when he reached near Gandhari at about 12:00 noon, one Jeep bearing No.AP-07-X- 0433 came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motor bike of the petitioner in opposite direction, as a result the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Kamareddy, and from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He incurred huge expenses, and thus sought a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured-petitioner. It is further contended that the driver of the Jeep was having valid driving license and that it is insured with respondent No.2 and so it is only the respondent No.2 who is liable to pay compensation if any. 5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the injured. They contended that the driver of the crime vehicle/Jeep was not having valid driving license at the time of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.AP-07-X-0433 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so what amount quantum and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 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.1,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 9. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 and 2 4 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. 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.1,04,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 9. Heard the submission of Sri Naveen Souda, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ram Krishna Mallojhala, learned counsel for respondent No.2. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded meagre amount as compensation and that it failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective. He further submitted that though the petitioner was admitted in a Government Hospital, he incurred huge expenditure on the attendant charges, transportation and other incidental expenses. He further argued that after getting discharged from Gandhi Hospital the petitioner underwent treatment in a private hospital which is established by the evidence of PW2 and that the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure for the treatment of his injuries. He therefore, prayed this Court to enhance the compensation. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that there is no proof of income filed by the petitioner and that the medical bills are also not filed. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. 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 of the Tribunal need any interference? 4. To what relief? 13. Point No.1: a) The case of PW1 is that he used to do agriculture and that he also used to sell vegetables and milk and was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. No proof is filed in this regard. 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 as the income. In the said case the accident occurred in 2004 and the petitioner was a labourer, but in the present case, he is an agriculturist and the accident occurred in 2015. In the said case the accident occurred in 2004 and the petitioner was a labourer, but in the present case, he is an agriculturist and the accident occurred in 2015. The Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- per month which appears to be justified on a reasonable hypothesis. b) It is his further case that he sustained grievous injuries and was admitted in Gandhi Hospital and was treated by PW2/Dr. B. Kiran Kumar. The evidence of PW2 reveals that the petitioner was admitted in Gandhi Hospital and was treated by him that the petitioner sustained abrasions over the chest and external region over abdomen, ambilicus over left leg, he had difficulty in breathing and there was pain in the left side of the chest and abdomen. Thus, he was treated for the said injuries in their hospital and that the petitioner required two months rest for healing. A case sheet under Ex.C1 was marked through his evidence. Nothing material was elicited in his cross examination to dislodge his evidence. c) A perusal of Ex.C1 reveals the details of the treatment that was provided to the petitioner at Gandhi Hospital. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills. The Injury Certificate filed under Ex.A5 does not reveal any details of the injuries, but it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained grievous injury. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Gandhi Hospital which shows that the petitioner was admitted on 04.03.2015 and discharged on 20.04.2015 i.e., for a period of 1½ months he was hospitalized for the said treatment. The evidence of PW2 reveals that the petitioner required two months bed rest and thus he must have taken another two months for complete recovery. Therefore loss of earnings for four months is awarded i.e., (Rs.8,000/- x 4 = 32,000/-). d) Though the petitioner has undergone free treatment in the Government Hospital, some amount of expenditure towards extra nourishment, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses cannot be ruled out. The discharge summary under Ex.A4 discloses that he was hospitalized for 1½ months i.e., (45) days, therefore, considering the expenditure under all these heads, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards extra- nourishment, attendant charges, transportation and other medical and incidental expenses. e) The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering which appears to be just and reasonable. The discharge summary under Ex.A4 discloses that he was hospitalized for 1½ months i.e., (45) days, therefore, considering the expenditure under all these heads, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards extra- nourishment, attendant charges, transportation and other medical and incidental expenses. e) The Tribunal has granted Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering which appears to be just and reasonable. f) 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 50,000/- 2. Loss of earnings due to disability 32,000/- 3. Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 50,000/- Total 1,32,000/- g) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.1,32,000/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,04,000/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14. 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.1,04,000/- to Rs.1,32,000/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14 . 1 POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 18.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.400 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,04,000/- to Rs.1,32,000/-, 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.2 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.