U Parshuramulu Vs S Shankaramma

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAYTHE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶5

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2601 OF 2013

¶6

Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to modify the Judgement and Decree passed in O.P.No.2024 of 2010 on the file of the MACT-cum-lX Addl Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad dt.08-07-2013 and enhance the compensation and interest throughout costs.

¶7

Between:

¶8

U Parshuramulu, S/o Balaiah, Occ - Driver Presently R/of H.No.17-2-550/1, Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶9

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

1 S. Shankaramma, Wo Venkat Reddy, Occ - Business, R/o Ragampet, Choppadandi, Karimnagar Dist, A.P ,

¶12

2 Cholamandalam MS Gneral lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Deputy Manager, H.No.6-3-1093, V Floor WS Vintage, Boulevard, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶13

. . . Respondents/Respondents

¶14

Counsel for the Appellan(s):SRl. Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: Kota Subba Rao

¶16

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶17

--t--_

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI WSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No,26OL of 2013

¶19

JTIDGMENT:

¶20

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 08.07.20 13 passed ln O.P.No.2O24 of 2OlO by the Motor Accidents Claims TribunalCum-IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal) seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,0OO/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 30.04.20 1O

¶21

The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant hled O.P.No.2024 of 2O1O under Section 166 of the Moror Vehicles 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 Harvester vehicle bearing No.AP- 15E-O3O2. It is contended that on 30.04.2010, the petitioner being driver of the auto bearing No.AP-23-X-1511 along with

¶22

2

¶23

ronr, IACXA llo.26ot o:f Nr3

¶24

others were proceeding towards Kothirampur side slowly^on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached near petrol pump, Kothirampur side and at that time one Hawestor vehicle bearing No.AP-15-AE-03O2 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in^the opposite direction came on to its^{wrongside and dashed the} auto of tl:e petitioner while overtaking another^{vehicle, due} to which the petitioner as well as the inmates of the^auto sustained grievous injuries. The^{petitioner was} taken^to Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical^Sciences, Karimnagar and thereafter, he was shifted to^Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment.^ThePolice registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2010 and hled^charge sheet under Section 337 of IPC against the^{driver of the} offending Harvestor vehicle.

¶25

The contention of the^petitioner before^{the learned} Tribunal was that due to accident, the^{petitionersustained} i) fracture of right tibia middle^{1/3'd, ii) fracture of right femur}

¶26

3

¶27

IVIIR,J XACUA No.26Ol of 2Ot3

¶28

middle 1/3.d, iiil fracture of distal 1/3ra L.T.Radius, iv) U/3.a region of let emboLism and other injuries though out the body, out of which three injuries were grievous in nature and the petitioner susta.ined disability due to the said accident and he was admitted as an in-patient on O2.OS.2O10 wherein two operations were conducted for fracture of right thigh (shaft femur) and skin were closed with skin grafting and rods were inserted, for which the petitioner had incurred huge €unount tou,ards hospital and medical expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

¶29

Belore the learned Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 ou.ner of the Harvestor vehicle bearing No.Ap- l5_E-0302 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited filed their counteraffidavit, clen.l.ing a_ll the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further

¶30

4

¶31

,aa,J aAcEA lb-26o7 ol2013

¶32

contended that the^{compensation claimedby the petitioneris} excessive and^{prayed to dismiss the claim petition'}

¶33

Basing on the^{pleadings and averments madeby both} the counsels, the leamed^{Tribunal framed the following}

¶34

issues, which reads^{as under:}

¶35

'i)^Whether tle^{pleoded arcid.entdt.3O-O4-2O1Ol],irsocqtne'd} owing lo the rash^{and. negligentdriuing of the diuer of the} Uaistor bearing^{No.AP-15-AEO3O2and tuhether the petitioner} hos sustained^{iniuries in the said accident?}

¶36

Wlrctler the^{CrimEVehickNo-AP-LS-AE O3O2 was owned bg} tfe fitst respondent^{an-d ittsured uith seondrespondent os on} the-date ol ite wident^{snd whether thepetitioner is enlitled} for "o^p"rr"itiorr, tle respondents?^{d so, to uhat quantum and uhat is the liabilitg of}

¶37

To wlnt^relieJ?"

¶38

After perusing the^{oral and documentaryevidenceand} going into the entire^{record arrd the evidence placedby both} the parties, the^{learnedTribunalallowed the claim in part} and granted compensation^{offls'2'68,7951'along with} interest @ 7Yo Pet^annum.

¶39

7 . Being unsatisfred^{andaggrievedby themeager} compensation amount^{awarded by the learnedTribunal, the}

¶40

5

¶41

rvl,4,J XAcxA I\b-26O, of 2Ol3

¶42

present appeal is hled on the ground arnong other grounds that the learned Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Harvestor vehicle, however, not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner On behalf of the appellalt, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A 1 to Al2^q,ere marked. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl copy of Insurance Policy u,as marked u,ith consent

¶43

Heard Sn Kasireddg Jagathpal Reddg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kota Subba Rcro, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the materia_l on record. The onl1, point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that

¶44

Whether the petitioner rb entttled for the enhanced competlsation, tf so, to Luhat extent?

¶45

6

¶46

xt{R,J MACEA lb-26o1of )r7

¶47

Admittedly, respondents have not frled cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident.

¶48

The petitioner fi.rther averred that the petitioner was hale arrd healthy and was aged 22 years and earning Rs.S,OOO/- per month as driver as on the date of accident. The petitioner was admitted in Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences and from there to the Gandhi Hospital and he was discharged from the said hospital on 01.06.20 10. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner sustained disability due to the said accident and two operations were conducted for fracture of right thigh (shaft femur) and skin u,ere closed with skin grafting and rods were inserted, due to which the petitioner was unable to do day-to-day affairs i.e., unable to lift heavy weights, drive auto to eke out his Iivelihood and also contended that petitioner has suflered 407o permanent disability, but the learned Tribunal rvithout

¶49

7

¶50

NNR,J l^crA ,b.26ol oI ?nt3

¶51

taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an arnount of Rs.2,68,795/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

¶52

The petitioner further averred that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. Exs.A4 and A5 Discharge Summaries, clearly shows that petitioner sustained the following injuries:

¶53

i) Fracture shafi of right femur. iEiii Fracture Fracture of both bones distaL end ight of lefi leg.radius.

¶54

L2. The petitioner- further averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have considcred the earnings of the petitioner as Rs.B,OOO/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/- p.m. and physical disability as 10O% instead of 2Ooh. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,00O/ - towards Transportation to Hospitals, Rs.20,000/ - for extra-nourishment instead of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,00,0O0/- torvards Treatment and medical expense instead ot Rs.3,695/-, Rs.3O,OOO/- towards private

¶55

8

¶56

ru\4J XACYA lto.26o, ol2or3

¶57

attendant charges, Rs.2,OOO/- towards damage to clothing, Rs.4O,0O0/- towards loss of earning during treatment^instead of Rs.4,5OO/-, Rs.SO,OOO/- towards^{compensation for pain &} sufferings instead of Rs.75,000/-,^{Rs.75,OOO/-towards loss of} amenities in life, Rs.3O,OOO/-^{towards loss of marital life and} Rs.1,48,000/- towards continrring^{& permanentdisability' in} total Rs.5,O0,OO0/- but the^{learned Tribunal awarded an} amount of Rs.2,6a,795 /-^{andalso notawardedjust} compensation.

¶58

The petitioner further^{averred that the Tribunal ought to} have considered the^fact that^{tle appellant was an auto driver} and to that effect Ex.P9^{Licenseand also Registration} Certificate were filed, thus,^{in all probabilities, the Tribunal} below ought to have^{consideredthe income of the appellalt @} Rs.8,O0O/-^per month,^{the Tribunalbelowerred in awarding} Rs.25,O0O/ - to each fracture,^{which is on a lower side, the} Tribunal below ought^{to have appreciatedthe fact that the} appellant^{sustained 4O% physical disability and the sarne was}

¶59

9

¶60

rs.R,J EACEA,to.26ot ol ,3

¶61

confronted through the Doctor, who issued the said certificate, however, considered the disability at 2O%o, which is agarnst CAIIONS o[ law, the Tribunal below awarded very meagre amounts under different heads despite the fact that the Appellant sustained 4O% physical disability, the loss of earnings would be lO0% as the appellant cannot drive auto zrnymore to eke out his livelihood, the Tribunal below ought to have awarded interest @ ll to l2%o instead of 77o and ought to have awarded compensation even above Rs.5,OO,0OO/- as clairned by the Appellant, instead a'*,arded Rs.2,68r7951in total, u,hich is meagre ald prays this Court to enhance the compensation arnount au,arded by the learned Tribunal.

¶62

l,earned counsel lor the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

¶63

10

¶64

/s4,J YACYA ,\b.26ol oJ 2Ot3

¶65

Point

¶66

Admittedly, the petitioner^{got injured due to accident} caused on 30.04.2010. As^per the^{evidence, the injuries} suffered by the^{petitioner are grievousand simple injuries in} nature, the Tribunal had^{granted Rs.7S,OOO/-under the head} 'grieuous injuries',^{whichappears to be meager. This Court} enhances the compensation^{amountfrom Rs.75,OO0/-in all} to Rs.I,6O,(X)O/- i.e.,^{(Rs.75,0O0/-x 2=Rs.1,5O,OOO/-for two} grievous injuries)^{(Rs. IO,OOO/-x l=Rs. 10,000/- for one simple} injury) under the^head 'pain^{and sulferance-grievous} injuries'.

¶67

The^{petitioner claimedarr amount ofRs'4O'OOO/-} towards^{,loss of earning',whichappear to be unreasonable} and the Tribunal^{granted a sum of Rs'4'SOO/-'whichneeds} no interference^{by this Court. Further,the petitioner claimed} an amount^{of Rs' I,O0,0OO/-towardstreatmentand medical} expenses,^{but the Tribunalhas not granted the said amount} as the^{petitioner failedto produce the documentsin support}

¶68

11

¶69

J,6N,J EACUA ,6-260 t ol 2Or3

¶70

of his contention and relying on Ex.A7 and AB an amount of Rs.3,695/- was au,arded by the Tribunal under the head ohospitalization and. phannacg billso, which needs no interference by this Court as no documents filed in support of his claim to show that he spend an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/. Further, the petitioner claimed Rs.2O,OOO/ towards extra_ nourishment, which appear to be unreasonable and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,OOO/-, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶71

The petitioner sustained 40% physicat disability and the same was confronted through a Doctor, however, the Tribunal considered the disability aL 2Oo/o instead of 4OVo. Taking into consideration of the avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined assess the disability of the petitioner at 4Oo/o as mentioned in Ex.C1. Further, the petitioner is aged about 23 years, for the age group between 20_25, the multiplier to be taken is^,17,, so, as per National Instrance Comltang

¶72

r-

¶73

L2

¶74

10{R,., {ACNA ,b.26O, of Nr3

¶75

Ltmitcd Vs. Pranag^{Sethi and otherst, the petitioneris} entifled to an amount of Rs'4,5O0/-

¶76

xl2xl7 x4O / lOO=Rs.3,67,2OO I^-

¶77

On overall re-appreciation^{of the pleadings,material on} record this Court^{is of the opinion that the petitioneris} entitled for^{enhancementof compensationas modifredand} recalculated^{as above and as givenin the table below for easy}

¶78

reference.

¶79

Amount arrived at bY A.Eount arrived at by
the Tribunal this Court
Head
Pain and sulIerance
us rn unes Rs.75,OO0 Rs.1 6()
Rs.4 500
[,oss of income Rs.4,5OO
Extra-nourishment Rs.2 ooo Rs.2 oo0
Hos talization Rs 2, ooo Rs.2 ooo
Rs.1 695
Pharmac Bills Rs. 1,695
Future ProsPects Rs. t,83,6OO/ - ns.S,oZ'2Nl-
(Permanent DisabilitY)
Rs.5,37'395/-
Total Rs.2,6a,795/-

¶80

In^{the result, the appealis allowed by enhancingthe} compensation^{from Rs.2,68,795/- to Rs.5,37,395 l.(Rupees} Five Lakhs^{Thirty seven Thousand Three Hundred and} Ninety^{Five RupeesOnly)with the interest of 7 'sYo on the}

¶81

| 2ot7 AcJ zToo

¶82

13

¶83

l,tn,J ACUA l\to.26o, oJ 2Or3

¶84

enhanced arnount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of rea)ization. However, the claimants shall pay the defrcit Court Fee on the enhanced compensaLion.

¶85

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 withdrau, the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs

¶86

Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.

¶87

SIY-.A. JAYASREE ,,\55IST.{\T REGISTRAR

¶88

i
:r

¶89

<br>CTION OFFICER
<br>

¶90

//TRUE COPYII

¶91

To,

¶92

' Jl;^{roa, cum-lXAddl chief Judge,} ccc, Hyoerao)o (with records if

¶93

2 One cc to sRr.Jagathpar Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate Iopucj 3 One CC to SRl.Kota Sr, tbba Rao' Advocate toPUCl

¶94

1. Two cD copies

.r., I'St

HIGH^COURT

'DArED..2210712025

t btE F
z
(.) 1 fi l4rn 2026 6)
i)Fc =nr
-{:_"

¶99

JUDGMENT: MACMA.No.260'1^{of 2013}

¶100

M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWht) t

¶101

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF^TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶102

TUESDAYTHE TWENTY SECOND^{DAY OF JULY} TWO THOUSAND AND^TWENTYFIVE

¶103

PRESENT

¶104

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE^{NARSINGRAO NANDIKONDA}

¶105

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL^{MISCELLANEOUSAPPEAL NO: 2601 OF 201 3}

¶106

Between

¶107

U Parshuramulu, S/o Balaiah, Occ^{- Driver PresentlyR/ofH.No.17-2-550/1'} Saidabad, Hyderabad.

¶108

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶109

AND

¶110

S Shankaramma, Wo Venkat^{Reddy, Occ - Business, Rl/o Ragampet,} Choppadandi, Karimnagar^{Dist, A.P.'}

¶111

Cholamandalam MS Gneral^{lnsuranceCo Ltd, Rep by its Deputy} Manager, H.No.6-3-1093, V^{Floor WS Vintage, Boulevard,Rajbhavan} Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad.

¶112

... ResPondents/ResPondents

¶113

. Appeal filed under Order 41 of^{CPC prayingthat the High court may be} pleased to modify the Judgement and Decree^{passed in O-P.No.2024of 2010} on the file of the MACT-cum-lX Addl^{Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad dt.08-07-2013} and enhance the compensation and^{interest throughoutcosts.}

¶114

ORDER: This appeal coming^{on for hearing a1! yqon^perusing. the} grounds of appeal, thi Judgment^{jnd Decree of the District Court and the} iiaterial paperi in ihe^petitioi and^{upon hegr!1g the_argumentsof.SriKasireddy} Jagathpdt ieddy, for ttie Appeattant^{and of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocatefor the} Respondent.

¶115

This Court doth Order and Decree^{as follows:}

¶116

1 That the appeal be and hereby^{is allowed by enhancing the} compensation from Rs.2,68,795/- to^{Rs.5,37,395/- (Bypee-s Five Lakhs} Thiriy Seven Thousand Three^{Hundred and. Ninety Five RupeesOnly)} with^-the interest of 7 .Sok on the^{en hanced amount of compensation} from the date of petition till the date of^realization;

¶117

2 That the claimants shall pay the deficit Court Fee^{on the enhanced} compensation;

¶118

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the sa'id 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;

¶119