Dismissed

E. Mahesh, v. St. Joseph Public School

Telangana HC18 Feb 2025MACMA/3058/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A claimant appealed seeking enhancement of motor accident compensation for a shaft femur fracture, disputing medical expenses and disability findings. The court upheld the Tribunal's award on all heads, finding no proven disability or additional medical expenses, and dismissed the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

E. Mahesh, Vs St. Joseph Public School — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[^32s3 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3058 OF 2017

¶7

Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO. 2379 OF 201 1 dated. 27.09.2017 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

E. Mahesh, S/o Late E. Sayulu Aged 29 year, occ: Nil R/o H.No.104-D-16911 , Adagutta Tukaramgate, Hyderabad Telangana State

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

St. Joseph Public School, rep by Sri U. Gregory Reddy, Road No,8 Habsiguda, Rangareddy District Telangana State

¶13

Bharati Axa General lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Divisional Manager Off at 3'd Floor, 6-3-666/8/6 Gokul Towers, Punjagutta Hyderabad'-S00082, Telangana State

¶14

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI. JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶17

The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT

¶18

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTIC E M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3058 OF 2Ol7

¶19

JUDGMENT:

¶20

Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27 .O9.2O77 (hereinafter^q,ill be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as "lribunal') in M.A.T.O.P.No.2379 of 2011, the petitioner/ claimant has l-rled the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

¶21

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶22

The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,0OO/from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the road trafhc accident that occurred on 26.O9.201 1. The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries in the accident is that on 26.09.2011 he along with his friend by name V. Raju were proceeding from Malkajgiri towards Addagutta on his motorcycle bearing registration No. Ap 09 S 8337 and when they reached Mirzalguda, Kattalmandi, a Swaraj

¶23

\ \

¶24

¶25

Mazda bearing registration No. AP 29 U 2135 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicleJ being driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner came in oppose direction and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner. while overtaking another vehicle. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures and other multiple injuries all over the body. It is submitted that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No.2, hence, both the respondents are^jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

¶26

Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No. l/owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte and whereas the respondent No.2/insurer of the crime vehicle filed counter denying the petition averments including the age, earnings of the petitioner as driver, involvement of the crime vehicle, manner of the accident and prayed to dismiss the claim petit ion.

¶27

On behalf of the petitioners, PWs I and 2 were examined, Exs.Al to A7 were got marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to 84 were marked apart from Exs.XI and X2. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

¶28

¶29

MCPJ

¶30

the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of^Rs. 1,O8,48O/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appeilant/ petitioner preferrecl the^present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

¶31

Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasireddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ petitioner, Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company and perused the record including the grounds ofAppeal.

¶32

It is pertinent to note tl-rat the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned order. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.Al (FIR), A2 (charge sheet), A4 (accident sheet) arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Further, there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the policy at the time of accident as evident from Ex.Bl (copy of insurance policy).

¶33

As per the eviclencc of PWl, he sustained a grievous injury i.e., shaft femur left 1/3rd apart from other simple injuries to head, left hand and right hand. As per Ex.A3 Medico

¶34

¶35

¶36

Legal Certificate issued by LK^{Hospital PrivateLimited,the} petitioner alleged to have sustained^{fracture to shaft femurand} there is no whisper with^{regardto any of the other simple} injuries alleged to have been^{sustainedby the.petitioner in the} accident that occurred on^{23.1 I .2O I 1.}

¶37

The first and foremost contention^{of the learned counsel} for the petitioner is that the^{learnedTribunal failed to consider} the quantum of medical^{expensesincurredby the petitioner at} LK Hospital and erred in^{brushingaside the oral testimony of} PW2, who categoricaily^{denied aboutthe petitioner not receiving} arly treatment under^{Arogra Sree Scheme and thus, a sumof} Rs.SO,OOO/- as claimed^{towards medical expensesought to have} been awarded by the^{learned Tribunal.}

¶38

It is the contention^{of the respondent No.2/lnsurance} Company that the^{petitioner obtainedtreatment under Arorya} Sree, as such the petitioner^{has not incurred any amount. In} this regard, it was^{elicited by the learned counsel for the} respondent No.2/Insurance^{Company from thecross} examination of^{petitioner/PW} I^{that he was treated under} Arorya Sree Scheme.^{Though similar suggestion was givento} PW2 i.e., the doctor, who^{has providedtreatment to the}

petitioner at LK Hospitals, the said suggestion was denied by PW2. As per the impugned order, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.25,480/ - towards medical expenses by relying on the oral evidence of PW2 coupled with documentary evidence under Exs.A8 and A13. It is not the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner has hled necessary documentary evidence to substantiate that he has incurred Rs.5O,OO0/- towards the medical expenses, the learned Tribunal has not awarded the same. When the petitioner failed to Iile any other documentary evidence to establish that he has incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, the learned Tribunal cannot award the amount based on assumptions and presumptions. Hence, the above contention o[ the learned counsel for the petitioner is unsustainable.

¶43

1 1. It is further contention of the learned counsr:l for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner sustained severe injuries, due to which he is unable to sit or squat and thereby lost his prospects, horvever, the learned Tribunal did not award towards future loss of earnings. It is further contended that it would be difficult for the petitioner to get suitable alliances in view of nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner.

In the chief examination PWl deposed that he is unable to drive his vehicle, as such, he sustained loss of income at 1OO7o; still his movements are restricted; left leg is shortened; limping in walking; difficult to sit and squat. In order to establish the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the doctor, who treated the p.iitio.r.. at LK Hospital, was examined as PW2. In the cross examination, PW2 admitted that the petitioner did not suffer any difliculty while walking, sitting, squatting and that the patient is comfortable and thal the petitioner can discharge his duties of .routine work. Thus, the above evidence of PWI describing his difficulties in attending his day^{to day activities} has not been corroborated with the evidence of PW2.

¶48

Though the petitioner contended that his leg^was shortened, the petitioner failed to hle any disability certiflcate^to establish that his leg was shortened after conducting^operation. Though the petitioner hled his photograph, the said^photograph does not reveal that the petitioner's leg was^shortened. Moreover, it is pertinent to make an observation on the evidence of PW2, who admitted in his cross examination^{that the injuries} sustained by the patient (petitioner) were^healed and^the operation conducted by him was success. PW2 did^{not even} depose anything about the disability alleged to have been

¶49

¶50

MCPJ

¶51

suffered by the petitioner due to the accident. When the petitioner failed to establish that he has sustained any disability, the question of not getting suitable alliances to him also does not arise. In these circumstances, the above contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he is suffering from various difhculties after the accident is untenable, more particularly, when the doctor, who has provided treatment to PW1, admitted in his cross examination that the injuries suffered by the petitioner were healed and that there is no difficulty for the petitioner in sitting or squatting or discharging any of his routine works. Since PW2 admitted that the petitioner can do his routine works, the question of petitioner losing his earnings aiso does not arise.

¶52

The learned colrnsei for the petitioner submitted that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the permanent partial disability sustained by the petitioner and fractures of left leg which was operated and nails were inserted and that the learned Tribunal ought to have seen that the petitioner was admitted in Prashanti Ortho Hospital for five days, wherein GASA was done on the petitioner.

MrcMA No l05A^or20r7

As stated supra, the petitioner failed to establish that he sustained permanent partial disability. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.2O,4521- by considering the discharge bill issued by Prashanti Ortho and Maternity Hospital. Thus, it can be said that the learned Tribunal did not lose sight of the fact that the petitioner undergone treatment is Prashanti Ortho and Maternity Hospital apart from L.K. Hospital.

¶57

A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clear that the petitioner alleged to have been working as driver in VRL Transport and earning Rs. 10,0OO/per month but he failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish the same. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs. 18,O0O/- towards loss of earnings by hxing the monthly salary of the petitioner at Rs.6,00O/- for the bed ridden period of three months. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- towards transportation, which is appearing to be^just and sufficient. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with hndings of the learned Tribunal so far as the compensation awarded by the lea;rred Tribunal under the heads 'loss of earnings' and 'transportation'^is concerned.

¶58

¶59

¶60

17 . Considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and also in view of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of petitioner, the learned Tribunal h:rs rightly awarded Rs.25,000/- towards^,pain and trauma,, Rs. 15,000/towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1O,O0O/_ towards .follow up treatment'. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the hndings arrived by the learned Tribunal so far as the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the above heads

¶61

In view of the abovc discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal awarded just and fair compensation to the petitioner. The petitioner/ appellant failed to establish any of the grounds to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the learned Tribunal and thus, the present Appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

¶62

In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶63

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

¶64

closed.

¶65

Sd/. A.SREENIVASA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/'

¶66

SECTION OFFICER

¶67

¶68

1 TheChairman'MotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-XlVAdditionalChiefirJoe f Fr.t Track^{Court). City Civil Court,Hyderabad (With Recordsif any)} 2 &?bd t"'sii inoniiipti^{i'eboV rnsinEo-o-v' Aouocate[oPUC]} J il; cc io snt korn^{SUBBARAo, Advocate[oPUC]} w^pr 4 Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

DATED:1 810212025

JUDGMENT

9F TE,,
9
f t- s
LLao $\ ,-,.
:.,,/
$' ,. ,'/
1?r
.;:? ,l

¶74

MACMA.No.3058 of 2017

¶75

DISMISSED

¶76

o<br>

E. Mahesh, v. St. Joseph Public School

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

E. Mahesh, v. St. Joseph Public School

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt.c.Usha Kumari

B Srinu , Srinivas Goud, Medak Dist Vs M. Laxman, Secunderabad and Another

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajesh Kumar Rana

Durgam Rajamallu Vs B.Pasha

Kanigiri Vijay Kumar Vs B.Venkata Reddy and the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd

Smt Kanigiri Hema Vs B.Venkat Reddy and Another