Gurum Ambika v. 1. M/s Pavan Traders

This appeal is filed b_y the injured- petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.06.202 1 in M.V.O.P.No.2476 of 2Ol5 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Additionai Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Court, Flyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and i:laritr', llre part.ics herein are referred to as they were arrayed before t hc 'fribunal.

3. The case of the petitioncr before the Tribunal was that on

25.12.2014 at about 19:50 hours, l-he petitioner was going along with his relatives in an auto bearing No.AP 13 X-7151 and when they reached VACS ilakcr,r', l{oard No. 10, .lubilcc Ilills, one Audi Car bearing No.AP-09 CP OO27 proceeding in the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligcnt manncr at a high speed, dashed the eruto from behind, as a result of which all thc inmates of the auto inclucling lhe pctitioner lell dou.n and sustained grievous injuries and thr- rlul-o turned turtlc. [mmediately, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospitarl, J ubilee Hills and that the petitioner took inpatienl. trea tmL-nt : rd incurrcd huge expenditure. Therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs.3,OO ,OOO I -. 1 ) ) lvl.\CMA No.5.10 20?1

4. The resporrdents No. 1 and 3 remained ex-parte

5. The Respondent No.2-lnsurance Companl, !lled counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the ()ccurrence of the accident and contended that there is complete negligence of both the vehicles and therefore, the owner and insurer ol the auto are also neccssary parties. They denied the age, avocltion and income of the inlured-petitioner and further deniccl the medical expenses also. It is further contended that the driver ,rf the car did not bcar a valid clriving license as on the datc of t-hc ac( idcnt and Lhat thc lnsurance Company is not liable to pay an_v L,)m])cnsati()n.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court hzrs fi'amed the follou,ing issucs [rrr trial: - l Whelher the pleaded accident dated 25. 12.2014 has ttccut red otantne to lhe ra-sh and negligent diuing of the dnuer of lrttlr Car beaitTq No.AP-O9-CP-0O27 and whether the petttt('ner \os suslarneC rnjuies in the said accident? Whetler crime uehicle N,.AP-09-CP-OO27 was ou)ne(l bA tlle fi.rst resf,otldent and irls)red uith second respondent ct:; on lhe date of an:cident and. uhether the petitioner is ettitled for comp.nsation, tf so to tDhat quanlunt and Luhal is tlrc Inb ttlJ of the re;pondents?

3. To wlnt relief ?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWI to 3 and got markeC Exs.Al to 4,6. On behalf of the resp()ndents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl was marked. r1 I J \,) ETO,,' MACMA No.540 2021

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,30,500/-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Iearned counsel for the respondcr-rt No.2-lnsurance Company

10. The learned counsel for the appcllant has sllbmitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation, inspite of the evidence available on record. He further argued that the Tribunal lailed to consider the disability ol the petirioner and failed to appreciate the evidence adduced with regard to disability sustained by the petitioner and furthcr failcd to au,ard futurc prospects. I{e further submitted that the Tribunal has a'ul'ardr:d mcztgre amounts under various heads and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has submitted that the alleged disability of the petitioner is not proved before the Tribunal and that the Doctor s,ho issued the Disability Certificate has never treated the petitioncr and hc is not a member of the District Mcclical lloard. l.-urther, ttrc said disability A ETD,J MACMA tJo.540 2021 Certificate is issu,:d after three years of the accident and trus, the said Certificate rs not reliable. He further submitte d t-hat the Tribunal has grzLnted just compensation and thereforc, p rayed to uphold the sanre.

12. Based orr thr: above rival contentions, this Court frames the lollorving poin t s 1r)r detcrmination:- 1 ) W et ler the claimant cottV) ,\salton ? is entttled for enho natme,r't of Wiettter lhe Order and Decree passed bg the i'ibunai nee<i 0t1tl t tterkrence ?

3. 'I'o tu tot retief ?

13. Point No. L: a) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sustaincd grievous injurier; rrnd has undergone inpatient treatmenl at Apollo Hospital and has incurred huge medical expenditure. In ,;upport ol her case, she got examined PW2-Dr. Ch. Sulapani. She filed Ex,A3/ Discharg;e Summary issued by Apollo Hospital. whercin it is mentione<l that the petitioner sustained injuries in a Rr>ad Traflic Accident anci tlrat the petitioner was admitted on 26.12.2014 and was dischargetl on 29.12.2014. The injuries are sii.ieci Lo bc laccration over forehead 3cm x 1 cm, stellate laccration over right eyebrow and upper eyelid, laceration over tempc,ral scalp, laceration over chin, multiple abrasions on face, laceration on iowcr el,elici arLd lateral canthus and that she was tre€ ted for thc --" 5 ETD,I MACMA No.540_2021 said injuries through debridement and also that multiple foreign bodies were removed. The collagen dressing was applied over the debrided abrasions and at the time of discharge, she was prescribed u,ith some medicines. Ex.A4 is the medical bill issucd by the Apollo Hospital to an extent of Rs.1,O8,278l- and PW3/T. Srinivas Reddy the Billing Manager of Apollo Hospital is examined, he deposed with regard to the inpatien t treatmcnt and also the bill paid by the petitioner at their hospital. Nothing much u,as elicited during his cross examination to dislodge his evidence. It is her further contention that she suslainecl distrbilitl' and flted Disability Certificate under Ex.A6. Sl-re got ()xamined PW2lDr.Ch. Sulapani who issued the Disability Ccrtificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 shows that the petitioner sustained 30% disability q,hich is partial permanent in nature and the naturc ol injuries sustaincd are mentioned as multipie injtrries over temporal scalp, fbrehead, eyebrow, eyelid, left cheek and chin. The Disability Certitlcate further does not disclose the nature ol disability and to u'hicir part of the body is the disability affe cted. lt is clicitcd in the evidence of PW2 that he runs a hospital at Vanasthalipuram and he issued the disability certi{icate as he has examined the petitioner physically and saw that therc is disfigurement of face which causes discomlort and stryness rvhen she minglcs rvith 6 ETD,J MACMA No.540 2021 others and thal due to the above said problem, th,:re is a possibility of <leveloping inferiority complex. ln h s cross examination he lras admitted that he has never treated the petitioner and fr;r the first time, the petitioner camc to him on 2O.O9 .2017 . [t s pe rtinent to mention here that the accident occurred in the yr:ar 2O 14. She has approached the Do,:tor/PW2 aftcr three years for obtaining the Disability Certihcate c! [t is borne out by the medical record that she was inpatient for Lhree days anrl the nature of trcatment underwent b.r hcr also do not suggest t hc gravity of injuries to result in 30% dir;ability. It is furthe r revcalecl from thc nature of treatment given at the Apollo Hospital thal 1;hc sustaincd injuries on the facc arrd wound tiebridement rva s ciorrc and a collagen dressing was done over the debrided zrbrasirns. The nature of injuries as deposed by PW2 also do not suggcst rrny disahility. Moreover he says that she may develop inferioritv complex in luture and thus he has assessed thc disability to 3O96. d) The sard evidence of PW2 does not convince thi,s Court to hold it to bc rr:liablc. Thc cvidence ol PW2 is not convincing anci the disability a:; rncntioned in Ex.A6 also does not speal.: about the details of the disability and the nexus with the injuries. Therefore, thc Tribunal l- as not considered the Disability Certificate rvhilc

4.=/. 1 ETO,J MACMA No.540 2021 awarding the compensation. The said decision of Tribunal is opined to be just and reasonable and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. e) The Tribunal has awarded the entire amounts spent on medical expenses as Rs. 1,()8,478 | - and further has granted expenses towards transport as Rs.IO,OOO/- and also Rs.15,OOO/- tou,ards extra nourishment *,hich are just and proper. Further, in view of Ramo,chol.dro.ppd Vs. Manoger, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insuronce Compang Limitedl, thc monthl-r' earnings of the labourer is taken as Rs.4,5O0/- per month- The samt: is considered in the present case and thus, the incomc o thc petitioner is assessed as Rs.4,5O0/- per month on a reasonablc hypothcsis. g) The pctitioner might have taken threc months to recovcr from the injuries as revealed from the naturc of injuries and treatment underwent by her. Thus, loss of earnings lbr three months would be Rs.13,5OO/-. h) An amount of Rs.SO,(X)O/ - is granted towards pain and suffering, u,hile the Tribunal has granted Rs.2S,OOO/-. The Tribunal has considered all the other components including '(2or!) t2scc236 -) MACMA No.540-2021 transportatiol'r. i.ejuries. Thc Tribunal has granted an arnount of Rs.6O,O(X)/- lor injuries which are found to bt: just and reasonable. (.)nLy with regard to pain and sr-tffering, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.SO,OOO/- and with regz.rd to the loss of earnings, Rs.13,5O0/- is granted instead of Rs.l2,OO0/-. i) Thereforc, I he compcnsation to r,r,hich the petr tioner is entitled is calcrrlated as Rs.2,56,978/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,30,478l-. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for- cr hancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answcred accr )r(lirrglV.

74. POINT N().12: It is hcld tlrat the ordcr and decrec passed by thr: Tribunal necd intcr[er(]n,:c with regard to thc quantum of comltensation. This Court h:rs enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,56,978/- trorn that of Rs.2,3O,,+781 - i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

15. POINT N().3: In the r<:sult, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifyring the Order and Decree dated 10.O6.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.2 4i.6 of 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lK Additional Chicf Judge, City Ci'ril Court, Hvderaba d. r:n h:rncing the cornpensation from Rs.2,3rl,478/ - to 9 ETD,] MACMA No.540 2021 2,56,9781- arrd the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the dale of claim petition till realization. However, thc interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos. I and 2 are 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 thc amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without lurnishing any security. No costs. Miscell:rneous pctitions, pcnding il- any, in this appcal, shall stand cLosed l I I i SD/- MOHD ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER lX Additional Chief To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Judoe. Citv Civil Court Hyderabad. o'oflh aecovdd 2. OndCC to Sri Pallatr Chandramouli. Advocate [OPUC] a. O". CC to Sri A,Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ASAiVB Y\- HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 SH\ <) 2r$[l M * SP/\T z C) 1a JUDGMENT+I)ECREE MACMA.No.54r) of 2021 PARTLY AL.LCWING THE MACMA WITH(3I.IT COSTS G ..6tel tr" 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOToR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 540 OF 2021 Between: Gurum Ambika, Wo Gurum Neelakanta Aged about 33 years, Occ House hold cum Labour R/o H.No. 7-1-363, Near Sai Baba Temple Balkampet, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad ...Appellant AND

1. M/s Pavan Traders, Rep. by Pavan Kumar Kolluri, Occ Buslness (Owner of Audi Car bearing no. AP 09 CP 0027) R/o H.No. 8-3-320/1/4, Sree Residency, Sai Saradhi Nagar Yellareddyguda, Ameerpet, Hyderabad.

2. HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Manager Door No. 6-3-346/1, 2nd Floor, Road No.1 Opp Vengalrao Park, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

3. Pavan Kumar Kolluri, Sio K. Hari Babu Aged about 32 years, Occ Driver of car bearing no. AP 09 CP 0027 Rio Plot No. 182, Road No. 10 MP and Ml"A Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 10.06.2021 passed in M.V.O.P No.2476 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad. This appeal comrng on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the Appellants and the Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate, Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.06.2O21 in M.V.O.P. / I No.2476 of 201 5 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tril:unal -.cum-lx Additional Chiel Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation f -om Rs.2,30,478/- to Rs.2,56,978/- and the en ranced amount of compensatior shall carry interest @7.5o/o per annum from :he date of claim petition till reali;:ation.

2. That However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 3. That the resporrdent Nos.1 & 2 are be and hereby directed to deposit the compensation zrmount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date oI receipt of a copy of this Judgment after dedur:ting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such d,:posit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishirg any security.

5. That save as aloresaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects: and

6. That there shal be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// \ SD/- MOHD ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SE'}TION OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies ASNVB \cr / HIGH COURT DATED:0210512,J25 DECREE MACMA.No.Sz[(l of 2021 PARTLY A[.[-()WING THE MACMA WITH OI.'T COSTS ,{"4q k**