Telangana High Court
Ragula Raji Reddy vs Mohd. Khaja on 5 December, 2024
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.215 OF 2022
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum - I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, (for short, the Tribunal) passed in M.V.O.P.No.311 of 2010, dated 11.05.2016, the claimant has filed the present Appeal for enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that on 07.09.2009 while the claimant was proceeding in an auto bearing No. AP 15 X 5723 from Karimnagar to Bejjanki at Devakkapally bus stop, due to the focusing of the opposite vehicles the driver of the auto could not see the lorry bearing No. AP 10 V 9167, which was stopped on the left side of the road without any precautionary measures and thereby the auto hit the said lorry. The claimant sustained fracture and bleeding injuries, took treatment at Surya Nursing Home, Karimnagar and Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, underwent surgeries and incurred an expenditure of Rs.4 lakhs for his treatment. Thus, 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the driver, insured and insurer of the crime vehicle i.e., lorry involved in the accident. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained exparte, however, the respondent No.3 has filed counter denying its liability on the grounds that the respondent No.3 is not the insurer of crime vehicle, respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license and that the driver of the auto was also not having any license and prayed to dismiss the claim application. Based on the rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following three issues.
i) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.AP - 10 - V -
9167 (R-1)?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom?
iii) To what relief?
4. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked with the consent. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, partly allowed the claim 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 petition by awarding Rs.3,99,724/- under various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the claimant has preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record including the grounds of Appeal.
6. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to note down some of the admitted facts. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 have not preferred any appeal against the impugned Award. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the Tribunal by relying on Exs.A1 (FIR), A2 (Charge-sheet), A3 (MVI Report) and A5 (Form No.54) has answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 10 V 9167 and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. There is also no dispute that the insurance policy under Ex.B1 was subsisting as on the date of accident.
7. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner was issued disability certificate under Ex.A13 by the medical board, District Government Hospital at Karimnagar showing 50% disability.
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022
8. A perusal of Ex.A13 discloses that the petitioner alleged to have sustained 50% disability due to post traumatic stiffness of left upper limb (weakness of grip). It is surprising to note that the claimant has not even pleaded in his pleadings that he has sustained 50% disability. In fact, the claimant has brought to the notice of the Tribunal about his disability for the first time in his chief examination affidavit on 29.01.2013 as the said disability alleged to have sustained by the claimant is subsequent to filing of the claim petition. However, it is to be seen that the claimant failed to examine the medical official, who has issued disability certificate. Further, as can be seen from Ex.A13, it is clear that the said certificate is not valid for medico legal cases. The accident alleged to have taken place on 07.09.2009 and whereas Ex.A13 disability certificate was issued on 04.01.2011. The only medical officer examined by the claimant was PW2, who has provided treatment to the claimant at Apollo Hospital. A perusal of the entire evidence of PW2, who was examined on 14.11.2013, does not disclose that the claimant sustained any disability or that there is a possibility of claiming sustaining disability in future. The claimant ought to have examined the medial officer, who has issued disability certificate under Ex.A13. Thus, all these circumstances disprove 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant has sustained disability and that the Tribunal failed to consider the said aspect.
9. The next contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects in view of the disability suffered by the petitioner.
10. It is to be noted that future prospects can be awarded when the accident results in permanent disablement of the claimant. As per the pleadings of the petitioner/claimant before the Tribunal, it is not the case of the claimant that he has suffered permanent disability or partial disability. The evidence of PW2 discloses that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 08.09.2009 with Hemo Thorax with fracture ribs and multiple fractures with head injury occipital fracture. Though the claimant alleged to have sustained grievous injuries, there is no evidence to show that he has sustained disability either permanent or partial. When there is no disability, the question of awarding future prospects does not arise. Hence, the above contention of the learned counsel for the claimant does not hold water.
6
MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022
11. It is the specific contention of the claimant that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the petitioner was shifted from Devakkapally Bust Stop to Karimnagar Surya Nursing Home and from there to Hyderabad Apollo Hospital, as such awarding Rs.3,000/- only towards transportation charges is meager causing injustice to him.
12. The claimant got exhibited two bills under Ex.A12 that were issued towards ambulance expenses. The first bill dated 08.09.2009 was for Rs.3,500/- issued by Advaitha Imaging and Medical Services and the second bill dated 08.09.2009 was for Rs.2,500/-. But the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- towards transportation on the ground that none were examined to prove the bills. There is no dispute that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident that occurred at Devakkapally, Karimnagar and from there the claimant was shifted to Surya Nursing Home and from there he was shifted to Apollo Hospital and in this regard the claimant got examined PW2 i.e., the doctor, who provided treatment to the claimant at Apollo Hospital. Without the help of ambulance services the claimant could not have been shifted from place of accident to the hospital at Karimnagar and from there to the hospital at Hyderabad. Apart from that the claimant is also required to 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 attend the hospital for treatment subsequent to his discharge from Apollo Hospital. For taking treatment by traveling to all the above places, the claimant might have incurred considerable amount towards transpiration. Thus, viewed from any angle, awarding of Rs.3,000/- against the claim of the claimant for Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges is on lesser side, more particularly when the claimant has filed bills for Rs.6,000/- incurred by him to meet the ambulance charges. Further, the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. Since the claimant has sustained disability due to grievous injuries, he requires good nutritious food with vitamin supplements to recover from the injuries quickly. Hence, this Court is of the view that awarding Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges would be just and appropriate.
13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the claimant was earning Rs.9,500/- per month and that awarding of Rs.2,500/- towards loss of earnings is not justified.
8
MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022
14. The claimant relied upon Exs.A15 and A16 to establish his earnings. Ex.A15 is the appointment letter of the claimant issued Adecco. Ex.A16 is the certificate consisting of salary details issued by Adecco in the name of the claimant. Ex.A16 discloses that the take home salary of the claimant was Rs.9,129/-. But it is surprising to note that the appointment letter was pertaining to the period 01.08.2012 to 31.07.2013 and whereas the accident occurred on 08.09.2009. Thus, it is clear that Exs.A15 and A16 were not pertaining to the relevant period. In the absence of any evidence to prove the earnings capacity of the claimant, the Tribunal by relying on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court Ratan and Another vs. Rakesh Jain and Another 1 fixed the notional income of the claimant @ Rs.30,000/- per year. A perusal of facts in Ratan's case (supra) discloses that the claimants in the said case were parents of a non earning member i.e., minor daughter aged about 6 years. But in the case on hand, the claimant is a man of 36 years old and he was claiming that he was earning by doing private job and agriculture. Even if it is presumed that the claimant was doing agricultural work as a labourer, he might have earned Rs.150/- per day during the relevant point of 1 2014 ACJ 2308 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 time. Though Exs.A15 and A16 does not disclose that he was earning the income as stated in the said exhibits, an inference can be drawn that the claimant is having capacity to earn his monthly income and at any stretch of imagination it cannot be assumed that he is a non earning member merely because he did not file any proof to establish his monthly income for the relevant period. Since Exs.A15 and A16 are pertaining to the period that is much subsequent to the relevant period, the income mentioned in those exhibits i.e., Rs.9,129/- cannot be considered. However, considering the earning capacity of the claimant as evident from Exs.B15 and A16, this Court is of the considered opinion that the claimant is capable of earning monthly income of at least Rs.4,500/- per month during the relevant period.
15. Now, coming to the bed ridden period, the learned Tribunal has fixed the bed ridden period of one month and thereby awarded Rs.2,500/- towards loss of earning. But as can be seen from the medical records, the claimant took treatment as inpatient from 07.09.2009 and 27.09.2009 i.e., for 20 days. As per the evidence of PW2 coupled with Ex.A4, the claimant alleged to have sustained multiple rib fracture, right occipital condoyle fracture, hemo thorax status post infer costal 10 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 tube placement etc. PW2 deposed that the claimant has suffered respiratory failure for which he was put on ventilator support and that the claimant developed sepsis with Acenotabetac with multi organ failure, as such the patient was treated accordingly with all higher antibiotics and monitoring with all consultants in the intensive care unit. In view of the above evidence of PW2, it would not be an easy task for the claimant to straight away continue his work immediately after discharge and it would take considerable period for him to settle down and recover from the mental trauma as well as pain and sufferance. Hence, the bed ridden period of the claimant can be arrived at three months. Thus, the loss of earnings for the claimant can be arrived at Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- x 3 months).
16. It is further contention of the claimant that the learned Tribunal erred in not considering the hospital bill issued by Surya Nursing Home, Karimnagar for Rs.4,600/- under Ex.A8.
17. As can be seen from the impugned award, the reason assigned by the learned Tribunal for not considering Ex.A8 is that the claimant failed to examine the concerned person to establish that he took treatment in Surya Nursing Home. It is pertinent to note that though the learned Tribunal did not 11 MGP,J MACMA.No.215 of 2022 consider Ex.A8 specifically, it has awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses for the treatment at Surya Nursing Home. Thus, by considering the oral evidence of PW1, which was corroborated with the documentary evidence under Exs.A6 to A8, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.5,000/- and there is no scope of any further enhancement of compensation under the head of medical expenses for taking treatment in Surya Nursing Home. Hence, the above contention of the claimant is unsustainable.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion in the above paragraphs, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified as indicated above. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under various heads, as follows:
Sl. Name of the head Compensation
No. entitled by the
claimant
1. Pain and sufferance 50,000/-
2. Transportation, extra nourishment 20,000/-
and attendant charges
3. Medical expenses and hospital 3,44,224/-
charges (Rs.3,39,224/- + Rs.5,000/-)
4. Loss of earnings 13,500/-
Total 4,27,724/-
12
MGP,J
MACMA.No.215 of 2022
19. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,99,724/- to Rs.4,27,724/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Date: 05.12.2024 AS