Gurum Ambika v. 1. M/s Pavan Traders

Judgment

This appeal is liled by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 1O.06.202 1 in M.V.O.P.No.2476 of 2Ol5 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Llydcrabad (for short "the Tribunal').

2. For convenicnce and claritr', thc partics hercin are referred to as they were arrayed bcforc t hc 'f riburral

3. The case of the petitioner before t]rc Tribunal was that on

25.12.2014 at about 19:5O lrours, [he pctitioner was going along with his relatives in an auto bearing No.AP-13-X-7 151 and when they reached VACS l-]akcn,, Iloacl No. lO, .Iubilcc I-tills, one Audi Car bearing No.AP-09-CP-O027 procccding in ttre same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligr:r-rt mar)ner at a high speed, dashed the atuto from behir-rci, as a result of u'hich all the inmates of the auto inclucling the petitioncr' fell down and sustained grievous injuries and thc truto turncd turtlc. lmmediately, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Jubilee Hills and that the petitioner took inpatient- treiltmrint and incurred huge expenditure. Therefore, he sought a compensation of Rs.3,OO,O00/ - i ) 2 MA IMA No.540 2021

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

5. Thc ller;pondent No.2-lnsurance Company fiL:d counter denying avermellts of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident e nd contended that there is complete nt:gligence of both the vehic:es and therefore, the owner and insurer of the auto are also necerisary parties. They denied the age, avccation and income of the injured-petitioner and further deniecl the medical expenses also. It is further contended that the driver of the car did not bcar a valid driving license as on the datc of lhr: ar:cident and that thc lnsurance Company is not iiable to pay allt- (:onrpensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has lramed the fol)ou,ing issue:.; lbr trial:- lUhelltet ti'Le plead.ed accident dated 25.12.2014 ltas,x:curred otDtlitlg to the rash and negligent diuing of the dnue. of ,\udi ('ar Ltea.itg No.AP-09-CP-OO27 and Luhether tlle pdttt;)trct has suslatn<d injuies in the said accident? 2 Whether crime uehicle No.AP-09-CP-0O27 was ou'ne.] bg tlrc first reqtondent and insured uith second respondent r1s or. the date of accident and uhether the pelitioner {s entltled for conq.:n:;dtion, if so to wlat quantum and Luhat is llu ltat ilitg o.f the' re sp ondents?

3. To wltat relief ?'

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWI to 3 and gol, marke,l Exs.Al to 4.6. On behalf of thc respc,ndents no oral evidence w,ls adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. I )\ l ETD,J MACMA No.540_2021 B. 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 respondent No.2-lnsurancc Company.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation, inspite of the evidence available on record. Hc furthcr argued that the 'lribunal failed to consider the disability o[ the petitioner and failed to appreciate ttre evidence adduced w'ith regard to disability sustained by the petitioner and further faile d to as,ard futurc prospcc ts. He further submitted that tlie Tribunal has avrarded mcagre 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 n'ho issued the Disability Certificate has never treated the petitioncr and he is not a member of the District Meclical LJoard. l.urther, ttt<-' said disability a: -, ." t,4ACl4A No.540 2021 Certihcate is isr;ued after three years of the accident anc thus, the said Certificate is not reliable. He further submit ted that the Tribunal has g,rzrnted just compensation arrd therefore, prayed to uphold the samc.

12. Based on tre above rival contentions, this Corrrt liames the following points firr determination:- 1 I rlt( lher the claimant is com)€tTsation ? entttled for enhan( emcnt of Wu ther the Order anci Decree passed bg the i-ri bunei rLeed atut itlterference ?

3. To rthat relief ?

13. Point No.!:- a) The casc rf rhe petitioner is that the petitioner has sustaincci grievous injurics and has undergone inpatient treatmcn, at Apollo Hospital and has incurred huge medical expenditure. [n support o[ her case, she got examined PW2-Dr. Ch. Sulapani. She filcd Ex.A3/Discharge Summary issued by Apollo Hospital. wtrercin it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained injuries in:r Road Trafllc Accident and that the petitioner was admitted on 26.12 2Ol4 and was dischargeC, on 29 .L2.20 f 4. The injuries arc stared to bc lac<:ration over brehead 3cm x 1cm, stellate lace ration over right eyebrou' and upper eyelid, laceration over temporal scalp, iaceration over chin, multiple abrasions on face, laceration on lowcr eyelid anc lateral canthus and that she was ti-cated for the ' -t- 5 ETD,J MACMA NO.54O 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 with some medicines. tlx.A4 is thc medical bill issued 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 treat mcn t and also thc bill paid by the petitioner at their hospital. N<-rthing much vvas elicited during his cross examination to dislodge his evidence. b) It is her further contention that she sustained disability and fllcd Disability Certificate under Ex.A6. Stre got cxamincd PW2lDr.Ch. Sulapani who issued the Disability Certificate. A perusal of Ex.A6 shows that the petitioner sustained 3O% disabiliry u,hich is partial permanent in nature and thc nature o[ injuries sustained are mentioned as multiple injeirics over temporal scalp, forehead, eyebrow, eyelid, left cheek and chin. The Disability Certillcate further does not disclose the nature of disability and to u'hich part of the body is the disabilit], aflected. It is elicited in the evidence of PW2 that he runs a hospital at Vanasthalipuram and he issued the disability certificate as he has examined the petitioner physically and saw that there is clisfiguremcnt o[ face which causes discomfort and stryness rvhcn she mingles r,r,ith €iD,j MACMA No.540 2021 others and tl at due to the above said problern, '-here is a possibiliW of rleveloping inferiority complex. ln his cross examination he has admitted that hc has never L:eated the petitioner and for the first time, the petitioner came to him on 2O.O9.2017 . It is pertinent to mention here that th': accident occurred in thr: year 2O14. She has approached the DcctorlPW2 aftcr three years lor obtair-ring the Disability Certificate. c) [t is borne out by the medical record that she wa:; inpatient for thrce davs rLnd thc nature of trcatment undcrwerrt l,y hcr also do not suggest the gravit_v of injuries to result in 3oozo disability. It is further rcvca cd from thc nature of tr€atment given at the Apoll<; Hospital that ;hc sustaincd injuries on the face and wour-rd ciebridcmen i rva s done and a collagen dressing was doi-ie over thc debrided abrasi()ns. The nature of injuries as deposed by PW2 also do not sug€{csl any disa bility. Moreover he says that she may develop inferiority complex in future and thus he has assessed thc disability to 3ool,. d) The said ,:vrdence of PW2 does not convince this Court to hold it to bc rcliablc. Th<: cvidence of PW2 is not cor-rvincing and the disability as mcntioned in Ex.A6 also does not speak about the details of the dis;ability and the nexus with the injuries. 'lherefore, the Tribunal has not considered the Disability Certificate whilc a-- l ETD,] MACMA No.540 2021 awarding lhe 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 cxpenses as Rs.1,O8r478l- and further has granted expenses towards transport as Rs.1O,OOO/- and also Rs.l5,OOO/- towards ext ra-nourishment which are just and proper. f) Further, in view of Rolnochandra,pprr Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedr, the monthi-r carnings ol the labourer is taken as Rs.4,5O0/- pcr month. The same is considcred in the present case and thus, the income o Lhe petitioner is assessed as Rs.4,500/- per month on a reasonable hypothcsis. The pctitioner might have taken three months to recovcr d from the injuries as revealed from the nature of injuries and treatment underwent by her. Thus, loss ol earnings lbr three months would be Rs.13,50O/-. h) An amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- is granted towards pain and suflerir-rg, r.r,hile the Tribunal has granted Its.25,OOO/-. The Tribunal has considered all the other components including ' (2o lr) ll sc( 116 8 MA( MA No.540 2021 transportation. injuries. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.6O,OOO/- br injuries which are found to be just and reasonable. C,nly with regard to pain and suffering, thc compensation s enhanccd to Rs.SO,OOO/- and with re gard to the loss of earning:;. Rs.13,5O0/- is granted instead of Rs.12rO(X)/-. i) Thereforr:, the compcnsati<.rn to which thc pt titioncr is entitled is cal,:ulated as Rs.2,56,978/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,:]O,478l-. Therefore, it is opined thal tht: petitioner is cntitlecl [or cr-rhanceme nt of cornpensation. Hence. pc,int No.1 is answercd accor drngly.

14. POINT NO.2: It is hcld that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need interfcrercc with regard to thc quantum of compensation. This Court lras cnhanced the compensation to Rs.2,56,11781- from that of Rs.2,3O,4781 - i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

15. POINT N().3: In thc r,:sult, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modif','ing the Order and Decree dated 1O.O6.2021 in M.V,O.P.No.2476 of 2O15 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-1.( Additional Chicl Judge, City Civil Court, Hvderabad. \ "--\ cnhancing the compensation from Rs.2l,3(),478/- to 9 ETD,J MACMA No,540 2021 2,56,9781- and the cnhanced amount of compe nsation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. l{owever, {.hc interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Thc respondent Nos.l 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 oI this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appe llant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous pcritions, penciing il any, in this appcal, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR t, TION OFFICER To, .! .t. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional chief Judoe. Citv Civil Court Hyderabad. o'pflh ote'ov&d 2 OodCC to Sri Patlati Chandramouli. Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies AS/NVB Yr HIGH COUR DATED:0210!it2025 iEf o, i'l () t 11 I 2 * c SF Z c) )> * JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.540 ot 2A21 PARTLY ALL|SWING THE MACMA WITHOUTT COSTS G -af'b F* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 540 OF 202'l 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 Business (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, S/o K. Hari Babu Aged about 32 years, Occ Driver of car bearing no. AP 09 CP 0027 R/o Plot No. 182, Road No. 10 MP and IvILA 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 coming 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 I No.2476 of 2 31 5 passed by the Motor Accident Claims lribunal -+um-lX Additional Cl'ief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhan<:ing the compensatiorr from Rs.2,30,4781 to Rs.2,56,978/- and the r:nhanced amount of compensa'.ion shall carry interest @7.SYo per annum frorn the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That However, the interest for the period of delay, if any is rbrfeited. 3. That the respcndent Nos.1 &2arebe and hereby directed lo deposit the compensatiorr amount with accrued interest within a perrod lf two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

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

6. That there sh:rll be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// \ SE}/- MOHD ISMAIL D EP JTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Ci,ril Court Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies AS/NVB \q- HIGH COUR'I' DATED:0214112025 DECREE MACMA.No.540 ot 2021 PARTLY At.l-()WING THE MACMA WITHrCL.lT COSTS ,-t'{a k**