Bheemanathi Rajasekhar v. 1. Galenki Ganesh

THE HON'BLT SMT. JIISTICE RTNUI(A YARA M.A.C. M.A.No.13OS of 2ol23 JUIX}MENT: Heard Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appeltant/claimant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Comparry. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Jagtial (for short the TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2018, dated IO.O4-2O23- *

3. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traflic accident that occurred on 18.12.2017 while himself and as a pillion rider and his friend Ananthula Krishna Chaithanya as rider were returning from Godavarikhani to Raikal on a motorcyele bearing No.TS-O2-EB- 4693. When the motorcycle reached Dharmaram at 5 pm, respondent No.l who was driving the auto bearing No.P-15-TA- 4333 carne in rash and negligent manner in high speed and swerved the auto without giving signal and thereby, dashed the motorcycle causing fall of the claimant which resulted in head injury and other multiple injuries all over the body. As a result of 2 the injuries sustained in the accident, the claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs.20,OO,OOO/- from the respondents jointly and severally.

4. The claimant got examined PWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P57 and Exs.Cl to C9 bills. Respondent No.2 got examined RWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs-Rl to R4.

5. Upon examining the oral a3d documentar5r evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.6,16,6231- with interest at

7.5o/o per annum. The Tfibunal foisted the liability only on respondent No.1 and exonerated. respondent No.2. However, respond.ent No.2 was directed to pay the compensation and recover the salne from respond.ent No.l. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is preferred.

6. [n grounds of appeal, t]re claimant alleged that he was aged 21 years and sustained head injury, was treated by PW2, a Neuro Surgeon and he issued. injury certificate but said evidence has not been taken into consid.eration by the Tribunal. Further, the claimant underwent brain surgery but was awarded with meager compensation. There is evidence of PW2 that the claimant requires future surgery which cost Rs.2,OO,0O0/- and there will be need for use of medicines lifelong to prevent epileptic attacks. There is ,\ ^\. \ 3 significant memory disturbance and therefore, the claimant is suffering with looo/o disability but the same is not compensated' There is faiture to apply multiplier system 4s the claimant was a supervisor under Thums-up dealer. No amounts are granted under tlle head of permanent disability'

7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the claimant argued that the claimant sustained rnjuries in an accident while he was working as a Supervisor in Thums-up dealership company with Rs.10,000/- per month income. Due to'the accident, the claimant sustained left temporal extra dural hematoma and right fronto temporal subdural hematoma with underlying contusion. Learned counsel emphasized that this surgery has caused complete disfiguration of the head and there is defective functioning in operated portions of the brain and said evidence has not been taken into consideration while awarding compensation'

8. The claimant was aged 21 years as on the date of accident' The police record does not reveal the avocation of the claimant except that he is the son of a Beedi worker. The injury certificate shows that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries to the head. The claimant did not produce any evidence about his avocation as a Supervisor in dealership of Thums-up company' ) . !,1 .,n 4 Except the self serving evidence of PW1, there is no evidence to support the claim tl.at the claimant was indeed working as a Supervisor in a dealership of Thums-up company' g. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,oo0/- towards pain and suffering when the claimant suffered two grievous injuries and the sarne needs to be enhanced as per statute by awarding Rs.2S'OOO/- for each grievous iniury. Further, an amount of Rs.S,OOO/- is awarded towards extra nourishment and the same is enhanced to Rs.15'OOO/-. The award of Rs.5rg6r623l- towards medical bills is not interfered with'

10. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1O,OOO/- towards loss of income. There is no evidence as to income. Therefore, the notional income of the claimant is taken at Rs.7,oOOl- per month as an unskilled labourer and Rs.42rO:OOt- is awarded towards loss of income for six months time that might have been taken for healing and resuming his normal work': 1 1. With regard to the alleged disfiguration said to have been sustained by the claimant, the learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment of the Honble supreme court of India in Benson George v. Reliance General Insurance co. Ltd. and 5 anotherr, wherein, a person who suffered head injury was awarded with compensation of Rs.I,41,94,3331'. The facts of said case are not completely applicable to the facts of the present case as iniured in the said case underwent multiple surgeries and was in coma for a substantial period. In the present case, there is no such issue about the claimant being in coma or undergoing multiple surgeries. The claimant underwent one cranial surgery and all the related medical bills are compensated. L2. The claimant did not produce disability certificate. Ttrerefore, this Court has no means to ascertain the losses that may be sulfered due to disability on account of head injury. However, on tJ:e basis of evidence of PW2 that the claimant has significant mernory loss and has behavioral disturbance, Rs-5rOOrOfi)/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and loss of future income. t \ L_i i, ! i

13. As per the evidence of PW2, there is need for futrrre sqrgery which may cost up to Rs.2,OO,OOO/- as per Ex.P57 Estimation certificate for surgery. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to said t I amount. Also, Rs.1,OO,OOO/- is awarded towards future medical expenses as the claimant has to take medicines to prevent Epileptic 12022 Lawsuit (SC) 230 / I !. i' 6 attacks in future. Thus, in all, the clairnanrt is entitled for Rs.15,03 ,6231 -.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6, 16,623 I - to Rs.15,O3,623/-, which shall carrJr interest at 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till ttre date of realization. The Respondent No.2/Insurance Company shall pay the compensation in the first instance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment and later recover the same from the respondent No.1. Upon such payment made, the claim petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. I I : i I //TRUE coPY// SD'- N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 sEcroN oFFrcER To, 1- The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunat-cum- Principal District Judge, at Jagtial. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to Smt. A.V.K.S. prasad, Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Sri K. Ajay Kumar,Advocate.[OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies SNJ/gh ..\LY , t HIGH COURT DATED:23 lOT l2O25 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1305 ot 2023 e ( 'l") 1 ? ';Lt tils [2 DRAFTSI :k * MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I : i I t I s f 3 t I I a I E I t I I I a ..l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENW THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO TI.IOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE J34/;2l rHE HoNouRABLE 3fl?tillttrcE RENUKA 'ARA MOTOR AGCIDENT GIVIL MISCELI-ANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1305 OF 2023 Between: Bheemanathi Rajasekhar, S/o. Gangardhar, Age. 21 years, Caste. padmashali, Occ. Supervisor-in Thums Up Dealer, Rl/o. H.No.740/1, Raikal Village and prope.r, J-agitial District. ..Appellant AND

1. Galenki Ganesh, S/o. Nagabhushanam, Age. 22years,Ayyavarlu, R/o.H.No. 2-581 1, EllampalliVillage, Anthergaon Mandal. (Driver-cum-owner of Auto bearing No. AP-15-TA-4333) 2 lffco-Tokio General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, H.No. 2- 1-113121lK, Housing Board Colony, Ramagundam, Ramagundam Nlandql' Peddapalli District (vide lnsurance Policy No.1JZSS54S, valid upto 21-11- 2018) ..Respondents Appeat filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.97 of 2018 dated.10-O4-2O23 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, at Jagtial. 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 Smt. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.6,16,623/- to Rs.15,03,623/- which shall carry interest at gyop.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization; 2' That the respondent no.2/lnsuranoe Company shall. pay the compensation in the first instance within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this Judgment and rater recover the same from the Respondent No.1; 3' That upon such payment made the ctaim petitioner is entifled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing and security; 4' That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in allother respects; and

5. That there shail be no order as to costs in this appear. //TRUE COPY// : SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1' The Chairman' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- principal District Judge, at Jagtial. (With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies SNJ/gh V , HIGH COURT DATED:231OT 12025 DECREE MACMA.No.1305 ot2023 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED. L^