Kumari Chincheti Averi v. M Naveen Kumar Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N MOHAN KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT Ho-!o URABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G .PRTYAI)ARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2773 ()F 2016 JUDGII/IENl': lrggr t i'ed by the Award and Decree clatetl 2,.1.02.2016 (hereinaf tt r- l,ill be referred as tmpugned Award,) ytassed by the learnec (llteirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal _ cum _ II. Additionzrl I istrict Judge, Warangal (hereinafter w:ll br: referred as "Tribrrrr a[") in M.V.O.p.No.295 of 2013, tht: pctitioner/ claimar r il,:ri the present Appeal seeking enhancr ment of compen sittil r.- .

2. Fr)r I h I sake of convenience, the parties hereinrrfterr are referred as ttrcy were arrayed before the Tribuna.l.

3. The tr:-itf facts of the case as can be seen frorn the record are that t tc letitioner, being minor representecl bv her natural guardian 'urc father, filed craim petition under Ser:tior 166 of the Motor \t:-ricles Act claiming compensation c,f Rsr.4,C0,000/_ from the re sp ondent Nos. I and 2 for the injuri,:s susta ined by her in tlre -cad trafhc accident that occurred on OT.aB.2Ol2. The reas tr: i s,s;igned by the petitioner for sustainingl inj rrries in the accicrerrt is that on OZ.Og.2Ol2 at g.O0 pM she along with her father .,v.--re proceeding in arr Auto bearing Nc,. AF, 22 y rclI (hereinaft.ei' * itl be referred as trime vehicle) frcm ,Jilledu ,ir:&!.e. r.:t. X towards Choudariguda and when the auto reached near turning of Padmaram Village, a Tipper bearing No. Ap 12 V 612g beiag driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the said auto. As a result, the petitioner fell down and received multiple grievous injuries. A case in Crime No.7g of 2Ol2 of Kondurg Police Station was registered for the offenc6 under Section 337 of the Indian penal Code against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is submitted by the petitioner that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 being the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. 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 mainly contending that the driver of the crime had no valid driving license to drive the said class of vehicle and that the crime vehicle. was not worthy enough to ply on the road. It was further contended that policy was not issued in favour of the crime vehicle and that the claim of the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. I !5 ; r.j*;+'".,i;g;.d

5. ()rr Lrr:half of the petitioners, pWs I and, 2 were ,.)xamined, Exs.A1 1o l.(j were got marked. On behalf of respon dents, no oral evide:ce was adduced, however, Ex.Bl c.opv of .rnsurance policy -,vas rrarked. Based on the oral and docrrmentary evidence. tte learned Tribunal awarded r:omoenl,ation of Rs.80,CrO,l,/- Aggrieved by the quantum ,tf < omlensation awarde,l b! the learned Tribunal, the appellant/;:retitioner preferre rl ttle present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

6. He:,r: Sri A.S. Narayana, learned counsel for the appellarrt,'p: tr tioner, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned l.itanding .and Counsel lcl. the respondent No.2/lnsuraace Comperny perused tlre record including the grounds of Appeal.

7. It is .:e rtinent to note that the respondent Nos. r and 2 have not prcft:rred any Appeal challenging the impu5lned Award. There is zrlsc no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as ,h: learned Tribunal by relying on the oral e rridence of PWl i o rll,:,1 with the documentar5r evidence under Exs.Al (FIR) anct {2 lcharge sheet) arrived to a conclusicn tlrat the accident ,)cc i rred due to rash and negligent driving c,f th:: crime vehicle. FurrlLer, though the respondent No.t2 a:-gue d that policy war; r.url issued in favour of the crime vehicle, a per usai of Ex.Bl reveals that at the time of accident the insurance policy in respect of crime vehicle was subsisting'

8. The hrst and foremost contention of the leamed counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner sustained fracture injuries to her right elbow' which is causing much inconvenience to her in writing and reading to pursue her future education, the learned Tribunal awarded meager compensation' g. A perusal of oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence under Ex'A3 discloses that the petitioner alleged to havesustainedlaceratedwoundsapartfromfractureof.right elbow. That apart, the petitioner also examined the doctor of Trident Hospital as PW2, who alleged to have provided reatment to the petitioner at the time of the accident in order to prove the nature of injuries sustained by her' PW2 deposed that the petitioner was examined oo 07 'O8 '2012 and found deep laceration measuring about 2 x 1 x 5.cm over right elbow for which treatment was done' He further deposed that the x-ray shows fracture of elbow, which is grievous injury'

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No'2/Insurance Company while bringing to the notice of the Court paragraph No.12 of the impugned order argued that the evidence of PWs I x .i 7 and 2 rr:v--a[:i that the petitioner was treated as an ()utlratient in the hospiie J, ls such, the injuries sustained by rhe Fretitioner were no1_ €t,rtrt'/r)us in nature- 1 1. The:-e i:i no hard and fast rule that a patient, who sustained frit,)r-ure injuries, has to be provided treatrnenl only as rnpatrenr . tt_ r .A3 coupled with oral evidence of pW2 clearly discloses therr the petitioner sustained fracture of :igh elbow, which is gnr:r,ous injury. As can be seen frorrL thr: irr pugned order, lr:arne cl Tribunal h1" awarded Rs.20,OCr0i -,.br the grievous i:r1, -r but since the petitioner sustained r'racture injury, thi; (tourt is inclined to award Rs.25,00()/ for ,the fracture injurl sustained by the petitioner. Further, the rearned Tribunal d ic not award any compensation for the la,:;erated injury sustr n<:rl by the petitioner. Thus, this Court is ircrined to awarcl Fts...,,000/- for the simple injury sustaired iry the petitioner So lar as the compensadon arnount of Rs.30,OOO/_ awarded 1 t lur learned Tribunal under the hr_.ad ,pai n and suffering' rs a64tr:aring to be just and reasonable.

12. Fur1h,:r', iraving sustained simple as well as grievous injuries, the p:t;tioner may not be able to attend lter rlar. r_o day aclivities luir L r> _:t the assistance of an attendant. The Ie arned .--q Tribunal has not awarded arr amount under the head attendant charges'. Thus, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/ - towards attendant charges.

13. Now coming to the medical expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,542/ - towards reimbursement of medical bills. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.25,OO0/- for the doctor's fee ald treatment charges. But the learned Tribunal did not consider the said plea on the ground tl-at no bill is hled to that effect and that PW2 also did not depose anlthing on the said aspect. At this juncture it is appropriate to refer to the evidence of PW2, who deposed that Ex.AS i.e. bills were issued by their hospital to the extent of Rs.28,5421-. However, a perusal of the number of bills filed under Ex.AS, it does not disclose that the petitioner paid Rs.2S,OOO/-to the hospital/doctor fee towards and hospital and medical expenses. There is no dispute that the petitioner sustained grievous and simple injuries. In such circumstalces, the petitioner might have spent some amount towards lab expenses, hospital expenses and medical expenses. It cannot be assumed that the for the treatment of fracture injuries, petitioner has incurred only Rs.3,542l- in these days of high standard of living. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has to obtain follow up I 7)" teatment elsc for quick recovery from the injuries s;ust:rined by her. He;.rr::, this Court is inclined to award Rs.!lO,OOO/_ towards htspit.al and medical expenses apart fiom the medical expenses, c,f J?s.3,S42/_ awarded by the learned .[ribr_rna]. Thus, the petiLort:r rs entitled for an amount of Rs.23i,54:2/- lrospital and med c:rl : xpenses. 14 marrlage pr:c spects life/futurr: <:ru-nings Thr: lt.-itioner has claimed Rs.1,00,O00/_ ton,ards loss of and Rs. 1,70,0OO/- toward:s I >ss of powers, maintenance and lr.,ss of consortiurm 'lhe learned Tribunal observed at page lJo.7 and in paragraptr l{O > of the impugned order that since thc: pelitioner is unmarried ar:d minor, she is not entitled for ccnsortiu m. In the context t1 i tjury cases, ,,consortium,, refers to the Legar claim made by a s.p(,use or close family member of an injured psrson, seeking cc)rrrp (:rl sation for the loss of companionship, su pport, and servic:s dur,to the injuries sustained by the injurecl party, essentially :JzLireing damages for the disruption of their relationshilr ,viL.-r the injured person as a resurt of the acci:lent. Loss of cons.rr.-jtrm is non_economic damage available. in some injury casr:s C ompensation for loss of consorl rum ca n be claimed wherr tLt: claimant can prove that he/she was dep,rived of the bene[rts of a family relationship because of the accirlent. -rIX Butintheinstantcase,thereisnosuchcase.Hence,the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under the head 'loss of consortium'' Now coming to the loss of future earning powers' maintenance and loss of life' it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not sustained any permanent disability so as to affect her marriage prospects or future prospects or to say that she suffered any loss of future life' Even PW2 i'e'' the doctor' who has provided treatment to the petitioner' did not whisper anything about the permanent disability much less disability of the petitioner' In such circumstances' it cannot be said that the injuries sustained by the petitioner would cause hindrance to the marriage prospects or earnings of the petitioner in future ' Hence, the petitioner is not entitled for any amount under the head loss of life / future earnings powers' maintenance and loss of consortium'

15. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs'6'0OO/ - towards transportation, which is appearing to' be on lesser side' It is pertinent tQ note that immediately after the accident' the injured was shifted to Government Hospital' Shadnagar and from there to Trident Hospital' Shamshabad for better treatment. The injured is resident of Musheerabad and thus' considerable amount might have been spent towards .. .: transpor-tirt i o r for travering from Musheerabad to lrhar nshabad as the p(rt,t_icner obtained treatment as inpatienl in Trident Hospital. l.le rrce, this Court is inclined to awrrd Rs..0,OOO/_ towards trai s Jrortation. 16' The rearned rribunar has awarded Rs. lcr,o0o/ iowards loss of eilrLc:Lt.icn and Rs. lO,00O/_ towards extra nourir.;hment, which ar: ac,1x:aring to be just and reasonable cons;rder.rng the facts and c Lr: runstances of the case. irmo unt of

17. Thouqjr the petitioner has claimed an Rs.2S,OO()/ - trwards damages to clothing an<i artir:lt s, the petitioner 1a le rI to aver and establish as to \t/hat u,e.re the damages lh tr tr:re caused to the clothing and articlesi bel,lnging to the petit:oru:r.. Hence, the petitioner is not entitl:d frr any amount unier lte head tamages to clothing and ilrticles,.

18. In vjerv :[ the above facts and circumstances, in a ll, the appellant/,:Lrirna nt is entitled for the. compensation r_rncler va rious he: rd s . r s; follows: Sl.No. Name of the head 1 2 PzLi: a _. : Hr)Si,ltt nd sufferance .al and Medical expens- Ccmp,sns; q1i9n award ed to the claiman t I Rs.) 30,( )0o/- 23,:1421- Ei l I One fracture rnlury One simple injury Attendant charges Transportatlon expenses Extra nourishment [,oss of education 4 5 6 7 8 2s,ooo l- s,0oo/- 5,o0o/- 10,000/- 1o,000/- 1O,o00/- Total t,t8,542/-

19. The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 8o/o per annum. However, as per the decision of the Honouratlle Apex Court in Rajesh and others v' Rajbir Singh and othersr this Courtisinclinedtoreducetherateofinterestgrantedbythe learned Tribunal from 8Yo per annum to 7 '5o/o pt' "t"''rn'

20. At tfre time of fi1ing of the petition before the learned Tribunal, the age of the petitioner was 12 years and thus' the learned Tribunal directed the compensation amount to be deposited in any nationa-lized bank till the petitioner attains the age of majority. But by now the petitioner might have attained the age of majority, thus, the purpose for which the learned Tribunal has ordered for depositing the amount m any nationalized bank has been served. Hence, the petitioner may r 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 : -, ati,, .:. be dire cretl to u,ithdraw the compensation anroun t a.,varded to 2I. Lr the result, the Appeal is allowed in part ty enhancing the conrF e rLr;:ltion amount from Rs.SO,OOO/- to Rs. l, .g,542/_, which s,ha I carry interest @ Z.5o/o per annum frorn the date of filing the :l,r im application till the date of reali zatron. The respondcntsr are jointly and severaily liable to degrosit the compen,;ati()11 amount within one month from the date of receipt c:f :. py of this judgment. On such deposit, the p etitioner is entitlecl trl withdraw the entire amount zrwar.ded to her without [u r;: i s hing any securitSr. There shar be no orc er as to costs. closed Miscellarreous petitions, if any, pending *;hal. stand //TRUE COPYII Sd/- A.I/.S.PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTI(:JN OFFICER

1. The Chairrrran. lt4ictor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Adriitional Chief Judge, City Cir,,il C)ourt at Hyderabad. (with Records) 2. One CC to SR . ,\ S NARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SiFrll f.l MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Co cirls, To I \ { $!q w €;.d:, HIGH COURl' DATED:12 tA,2'IZO2S JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.Z',tT3 ot 2016 n r 1i'lE '; I I 1 oO 11, ?- 2 r 'Lrr IfC5 z. (ir 1 i"1. l I ALLOWING THE MACMA I I L rN rHE HrGH "ou*If3$otffott#E t tf-'J#J.fl wED N E s DlY, rH E ff o *" {, ?=,,75', oF TELANGANA RESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M'EPRIYADARSINI MOTORA CCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOU S APPEAL N o;2 7730F2016 Between: [,ff=5*te;r1ffifiri]:'"Pf :]i:H;+'"'"i"il Occ'Student, Be-ing ""lHr?lAli,'lo"",i3, ...APPELLANT AND

1. M Naveen bearing No R.R.Dist. *[Tfl ,1ig1'ru''RiJ'i"I3r1"3fl I'*?%Y'311j;Rffi : jJIl|#l 2 Flli'iu ?3i"3' Hi:"3:? B""[l'H Hyderabad. Limited, ReP cade, Street No Its Branch Manager' 8, HimaYathnagar' ...RESPONDENTS .*,4',531Jli1ilih'l"j#i{j;i'#r""i:li'Hiiff;,l"#silff #"'":'Jffi Chairman, Motor Accident ( Civil Court at HYderabao' ,""Luoffi ??1'ruag{;q.;if f i:*i::1"" * ilI*yi,"o"* *"' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: ""i.-il;i th. rt,tncrure ue anJ nereuv is partly t"o*"oin" 2. That the compensation amount aw-ar-O.ej Oy tribunat be and hereby enhanced trorn n"'etidoi- t" n"'rlie's+2/- w'hic;;hall carry interest @7 'SYo 'th" claim afplication tilt the date of per annum.. tr.orn tn"""ili"'i'tiri"s fl$ffitn[lj^ffi5'pt ' .lxi'itxt5i;'pondentsbeandherebvJoilltly:d,^':1"j*''J?:ght"to:il\t" on"-'ilontt tiorn t'" date of receipt of copy of compensation "";;fti;hl; this Judgment; 7 the entire a"nc,,r,ri awarrls to t"ririin"ri'rrij.;;;; ,", sec,urit) 4 That on s;u:lr 5 That sav€! ^ rn all other respects; and ti. lhat therer s.ha,l l:e no order as to costs in this appeal. 'ieposit. that the petitioner be and hereby enti-red to withdraw aforesaid tne oecree'oiin" i-"*"r'L"rn sha, srands confirmed 'rs //TRUE COPYII Sd/. /\.V.S.PRASAD ASSISTAN T REGISTRAR To SECI.I6N oFFICER 1' The chairmarr, lvr.tor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- XXV Additionar chief ^ {ud99, City C,vil .l:orrrt at Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COIJR'I' DATED:1210',212025 DECREE MACMA. N o.2t'77 3 of 201 6 ALLOWING THE MACMA a ) r V- )D