Sabbella Veer Reddy, Sio Satyanarayana Reddy v. multiple injuries all over the bod_v. Immcdiately

Judgment

This appeal is liled under Section 173 of lV, tor Vehicies Act, 1988 (tor shorr, ,the Act) by the appel i nt/claimant aggrie'ed by the A*'ard and clecree dated, 26.1 r.ir() 9 passecr in M.V.O.P.No. 1623 ol 20I5 by the learned Motc r- Accidents Clairns 'lribunal cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, Orr Civil Cortrt at l{.i-derabacl (lor short, ,the TribunalJ,

2. The brrcf lacls of the case are that the petll.t l rcr has filed thc clainr pcLition claiming compensation of Rr; LO,0O,OOO/ (Rupees ten lakhs only) from the respondents fo. the injuries sustainecl br' him in a motor vehicle accident. lt I statecl that on 07. 12.2O)7. thc petitioner along with his rr ,phew u,ere procccding .rr his motorcycle from Ilrandu to j rlvancha of Khlrntrnarn Distrir:r: u,hile so, at about 9:30 A.M.. e .l.ata Magic Motor Cab bcaring No. Ap_24_TV_0 i36 ivas pr )ceedrng to Illanclr-r in opposr te direction, which was berne driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner tL high speed and dashed tltc motorcycle of the petitioner. As z result, the petitioner fell dou,:r and sustained grievous injrr 1. to head, 2 GMM,J MACMA.No.244 of 202O fracture of left leg, fracturc of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries all over the bod_v. Immcdiately, the petitioner was shifted to Sai Sudha Nursing llome, palvancha and from there, he was shifted to Govcrnment Ilospital, Kothagudem of Khammam District to make it as Nil.L.C; rvlrere he underwent lreatment as inpatient frcm 08.12.2014 io 22.12.2014 and again from 12.O1.2015 to 28.01.2015, during which the petitioner underwent suigery on 25.01.2015 and incurred hugc medical expenses.

3. Based on a complaint, the Poiice, Tekulapally P.S, Khammam District registcrcd a case in C;-inie 1.1o.240 of 2Ol4 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver ol crime vehicle and alter thorough investigation, filed Charge Slrcet undcr Section 338 of IPC.

4. It is further stated that at thc tirr.c of zrccident, the peLitioner was hale and healthy and was agcd about 58 ycars and was running General Provision Store and llotcl business and used to earn Rs.20,O00/ per month. Duc to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous in-;un to hcad, fracture of left leg, fracture of hip bones, pubic bones and multiple injuries on various parts of the body and suffered GMNl,J MA- 1{ N(,244 0f2020 1007o permrrncn t disability. Due to the saicl a ;cident, the pctitioner lost hrs carnings during the period he r.r,ir undergoing Lrcatmen L. It is furthe r stated that the petitioner l : cl also spent more than Rs.10,O0,000/- for treatment and (,r -rer medical expenses for thi: grievous injuries sustained and ,,r.i s u nder bed resl lor 3 ycer rs.

5. Belore the Tribunal, respondent No.l-ownr:: tf the crime vehicle, respondcnt No.2 insurance policy tolder and respondent No.il rlriver of the crime vehicle rema:r ed ex parte. Respondent No.4 Insurance Company filed a colL rer denying the age, incorne itnd avocation of the petitioner, I verments of thc claim pcrition ancl contcnded that the allegerl I cci.lent had not occurred clrLc to rash and negligent driving b1 he driver of the crimr: r,<'lticle. F urther, contcnded that the c river of the crirnc vchiclc r.c.. respondr:nt No.3 \ .aS not hav I g valid ancl slrbsisting r.lrrving liccnse and the crime vehtc r: r.r,as not roadwortl-r1. (0 ply, on the date of accident. t is lurther contended tlrtrr con'rpensation claimed is excessrr r , exorbitant and pravcd to clisntrss the claim petition.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tr.i: rnal framed the follou,ing issues for trial: -r-a ..*- -' -, r 4 CMN{.J MACMA.No.244 of 2020 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to negligent diuing of respcndent No.3 tuhile diuing Acer Motor Cab beaing No.AP-24-'|V-O 136 or1 07.12.2014? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, u.that is quonhtm ond from u-thom? 3) To uhat relieJ?

7. During trial, on behalf of thc petitioner, he himself got examined as P.W. 1 and also got examined thc doctor as P.W 2 and trxs.A- 1 to A- 10 wcre markcd. On behalf of the rcspondent No.4, none were examined, however, Ex.B- 1 r'.'as markcd.

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accidcnt occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle and awarded total compcnsalion of Rs 1,20,000/- with interest @ 60/o per annum from the datc o[ filing of the petition till thc date of realization, to be paid by the respondcnts jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said Award, the peLitioner has filed the present Appeal sceking enhancement of compe nsation under various heads.

g. Heard Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing CMM,J NlIa \ \ No 1,11 of2020 Counsel for nrspondenL No.4-lnsurance Companl e td perused the record

10. 'l'he corc (.ontcntlon of the learned coLrrr t:l for the appellant is tl'rat though the appellant proved I is case by adducing cogcr)t evidence apart from relying on th: documents under Exs.A- I ro A I O, the 'lribunal without cor L idenng the same has erroneolrsly awarded meager amount. Lvas further contended that thr: Tribrrnal ought to have consic.l:.ed the firct that due to the siLid accidcnt, the appellant sufft r td grievolrs injuries and s':rs adrnitted in the hospital anrl underwcnt surgery; hou.evcr, the Tribunal has not considerc J the loss of earnings during thc pcnod of his treatment; disat i ity suffercd and the period of Lrcd rcst thercafter. Considering 1[ e same, t.he Tribunal ouglrL to have au,arded just and reasonable compensation. On thc above grounds, the leart r ed counsel prayed to allou, the Appeal and grant just altrl reasonable compensa[ion.

11. Per contra, the lc:rrned Standing Counsel ft. Insurance Company has cont<'r-rdcd that rhe Tribunal has rigl rly awardcd the compensation Lhcrefore, interference of tl i ; Court is unwarranted 6 CMM,J MACMA No.2.+.+ ot 2020

12. Now the point for consideration is: " Whether the impugned Autard and decree passed, bg the Tribunal calis for intetference bu this Ccurt? If so, tuhether the appellant,t cktimant is entitled for cng enhoncement of compensation?"

13. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute u.ith regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the injuries sustained bv the appellant. 'I'he Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W 1 coupled u,ith the documenrary evidencc under Exs.A- I (FIR), A-2 (Medico-Lega1 Case Report), A-3 (Crime Dctails Form) and A-4 (Charge Sheet) has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred duc to rash and negligent driving of crime vchicle and ansrvered the sarne in favour of the appcllant.

11. It is an adrr,itted fact that the appcllant has not placcd on record any evidence to establish th:rt hc rr[as carning Rs-2O,OOO/- per month by running Gcneral Provision Store and Hotel business. On considering the evidcnce of P.Ws.1 and 2 ancl Exs.A- 1 to A-4, the Tribunal had rightl_v fixed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- pcr month. This Court is of the considered opinion that the income fixed by the Tribunal is neither arbitrary and fanciful nor unjustifiable from l GMNl,J MA(lI L No.211 ot 2020 the evidence placed on record. Further, the Tril) I ral having noticed the n.iture of injuries suffered, time takr:rL to r-ecover and engage in fris daily routine, has taken a < t nsrderable period, to compute for loss of earnings of two mor t ts. Thus, considering thc abo'e aspects, the sum awarded r. Tribunar unde r the head ol ,loss of earnings,, computed at ll ;.20,0007,_ (Rs. 10,000 x 2 months) appears to be Just and _r s56n2[16,. Therefore, this Clourt does not find any reason to rnl rfere with the income fi-xed by Lhe Tribunal.

15. [t is perrinent to note that the Tribunal up I r detailed appreciation of oral and documentary cvidence ret r rded that the appellant wits treated under ,NTR Arogzasree ij:heme, as admitted by p.W t himself in his cross_examination r rde Ex.Bl - certihcate issr-red b1, CISL Hospital, Rajahmu I try). The Tribunal further notecl that Exs.A-S and 4_6 did not cr ntain anv discharge summ:r n,, case sheet or prcscriptions r sllpport actual medical expcr.rditurc rncor.r srstencies in serretl numbers ol bills (Nos.216 t< 221), i.e., Exs.A-S to A-7 issued on different dates, which were rr rprobable and unsupportecl by hospital records where the a I >ellant is stated to havs t2ks11 treatment subsequently. 'l'he Tribunal ai s I I GMM,J L{ACMA.No.244 of 2020 -! 16. There is a startling feature to this casc and that is, that the appellanl's contention that he remained hospitalized for one month and nine days in Haritha Hospital, Kakinada (a semi- governmcnt hospital), as the location being far away from thc place where accident took place and also r.r'hei:e the appellant is claimed to normally residc and engage in his business. Further, the reports produced in evidence by thc appellant to establish that he undenvcnt treatment in Haritha Hospital shou's that it is afterthoughr and the said documents are brought into existence to suit Lhe claim of the appellant. Further, the entire evidence adduced by the appellant about the nature of the injuries sustained is based on a personal account in the witness box with no corroborative medico-legai testimony to support the nature or the (] xtcnt of the injuries sustained. Admittedly, there is no permancnt disability certificate on record, indicating any . physical disability that the claimant might have suffered as a consequence of the accident as alleged. Thus, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant did nol suffcr any disabitity. Accordingly, the Tribunal's vieu' that the documents adduced by the appellant for claiming medical expenses incurred by him during treatmen[ period which are produced under Exs A-5 to A-8 unequivocally establish that these documents were created 9 GlilM,J M.\(11 A No 244 of:1020 for the purpose of the claim and not genuine. Thu: , this Court finds no reason to difler with such hndings. ,I.lr refore, this Court is of the considcred opinion that thc Tribun I has rightty applied the principle that mere production of bills partrcularly suspicious bi1ls) without corroborating hospi tirt records or prescriptions (loes not establish medical ,xpenditure, particularly \4'hcn treatmenL under a free Governfil( ] t scheme is admi tted.

17. It is cviclt:nt that thc appe llant sufferecl i r..lunes i.e., fracture of pelvis and Fournicr,s gangrene on accour ! of a Motor Accident and the same are undisputed; further, t I ] treatment was provided under a free Governmcnt S,) I rme (,NTR Arograsrec") ancl that the period o[ treatmen[ lastr.r about one month and ninc days, the compensation grantec is neither arbitrary nor in:rdequatc. Thus, the Tribunal altr.r :onsidering the nature of injuries suffered and age o[ the rr I rellzrnt and treatment underwent, has rightly au,arded a sum ()[rls.SO,OOO/- under the head o[ pain and sufferir-rg and a sum ol l:s_2O,0OO/_ under the head of extra nourishment. The same l., tears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any intc.fert:nce by this Court. \-! 10 GMM,J NIACMA.No 244 of 2020

18. In the factual matrix of the present case, the Iindings oi the Tribunal are based on proper apprcciation of evidence and supported by cogcnt rezrsoning. No contrary cvidence is produced by the appellant to ularrant interference'

19. ln the tight o[ the above, lhe contention of the appellant that unreasonable and mcager compcnsation amount was granted under differcnt heads is unacceptable' Thus, in the considered view ol this Court, appellant vras granted just compensation, as rightly quantified by the Tribunal' Therefore' this Court does not frnd any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation ar,r'ardcd under different heads and also the rate of interest art'arded by the Tribunal' In view of tl-re above discussion, evidence and material 20. placed on record, in the considered opinion of this Court' the Tribunal passed a rvcll rcasoned order by taking into consideration all the relevanL aspects i c, nature of treatment undergone by the appellant, medical expenses' and the expenses incurred towards extra nourishment etc ' and has rightly awarded an amourlt of Rs 1,2O'OOO/- with inLerest @' 6%o per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization against the respondents jointty and severally' 11 GMI\{,J N'l?\( l) l l.lo 21,1 of2020 2I. This Court is of the considered vielr, that Llr appellant failecl to make out any case warranting interfere r:e by this Court rvith the impugnecl Arvard. The Appeal is ,,irhout any merit ancl is liable to be dismissed.

22. Accordingl5', the Appe al is dismissed cor.I rming the impugned Aq'ard and decree passed b1r the 'l'r i runal. The respondents are directed to deposit the said ,r() opensation amount after deducting the amount already depo:,i .t:d, il any, u,ithin a period of t!\ro months from the date of a r(,1 ript o[ copy o[ this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending : ball stand closed Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASS ! TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Ar Jitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu Advocate tOpUa l 3. One CC to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OpU _ 4. Two CD Copies PMI,.. HIGH COURT GMM, J DATED: 0711112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N o.244 ot 2020 H sfri r a) L I l7I? 't' l,- t: ,l! i ".. .,./ -.4, DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS VV-la'l"l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 244 OF 2020 Between: Sabbella Veer Reddy, S/o Satyanarayana Reddy AND ...APPELLANT

1. Nandu Ravinder 2. Sapavath Laksham Naik, S/o Harilal 3. Arem Venkateshwarlu, S/o Laxminarsu, 4. fhe lVanager, United Ramkoti, Hyderabad-20. ^lndia tns. Co. Ltd., (HUB) il Floor, Church Buitding, Appeal filed Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree dared 2611112019 in IM.V.o.P.No. 1623 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, Advocate for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the l\ilotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is dismissed confirming the impugned Award and Decree passed by the Tribunal; a. That the respondents to deposithe after deductins ; "#::.ted d;, ;# months rrom the date ora ,'j:'*:* Ji:::*: T::ff';i.#::il:T,ffi*.;: That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. J 4 cct rpensation amounr .,, ;n a per.d .f ,w. II strrr d confirmed in all //TRUE COPYll "fs#iiflitHa8,sffiiJ 7- SEC r ON OFF,CER :f i,?t Two cD copies Ut*, H;lTXffi*, t craims rribun a r.cum-r - - -vqu' -*' 'qt-uurrl-ll Additionz I 3hief Judge, r To, 1 2 Pna.. HIGH COURT GMM, J DATED: 0711112025 DECREE MACMA.No.244 of 2020 DISMISSING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS Af1 \B\)-\>6