The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.625 OF 2()17 Aggrieved by the Award and Decree dated 08.11.2016 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned AwardJ passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court At Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No. 1475 of 2013, the petitioner/ claimant filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as thelr were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The bricf facts of the case as can be seen from the record are that the petitioner hled claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensertion of Rs.6,00,O00/- from thc respondent Nos.l ald 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on

30.05.2012. The reason assigned by the peLitioner for sustaining injuries in the accident is that on 30.05.2012 he along with his friend by name Prasad went to Majeedpur Cross Roads in an amto bearing No. AP 23 X 2257 for collecting amount from one Ch. Ramulu and while returning back to 2 Medchal at about 2.O0 PM when they reached near Majeedpur X Roads, a TATA ACE bearing No. AP 15 X 5299 (hereinafter will be referred as trime vehicleJ being driven by its driver at high speed in rash and negligent manner came in oppose direction from Medchal side and dashed the said auto. As a result, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. It is submitted that since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No. I and insured with respondent No.2, hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

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 denying the petition averments and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. On behalf of the petitioners, PWs I and 2 were examined, Exs.Al to A7 were got marked. On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl copy of insurance policy was marked. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,O3,0OO/-. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation ,.] 3 awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant/ petitioner preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

6. Heard Sri Tw. Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner, Sri N. Mohan Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company and perused the record including the grounds ofAppeal.

7. It is pertinent to note that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not preferred any Appeal challenging the impugned Award. There is also no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence under trxs.Al (FIR) and A3 (charge sheet) arrived to a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. Further, there is also no dispute with regard to the subsistence of the policy at the time of accident as evi<lent from Ex.B1.

8. The hrst and foremost contention of the learne<l counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal did not consider Ex.AS disability certificate issued by PW2 on the ground that PW2 has not treated the appellant. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision in Charan Singh v. G. Vittd Rddy and anotherl, wherein it was observed that any qualified doctor cart assess the disability vis- a-vis loss of earning capacity and it is not necessary that he should be the same doctor, who has treated -.the injured. He further relied upon a decision of this Court in S. Murali Krishnan @ Murali v. R'S.Siva Kumar and another2, wherein it was observed that disability certificate need not necessarily be issued only by the doctor who treated the claimant. The learned counsel for the petitioner/ appellant while relying on the decision .of the Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Mubasir Ahmed3 submitted that even though the claimant does not suffer from 100%o physical permanent disability, he suffers from 10O7o fr.rnctional disability if he loses the capaciqr to pursue his work as a result of the accident.

9. The petitioner alleged to have sustained grievous injurtes to his right leg, left fore arm, head and other parts. In this regard, the petitioner relied upon Ex.A2 Wound Certificate issued by Mediciti Institute of Medical Sciences. Ex.A2 discloses that the petilioner sustained three simple injuries and r 2003 (3) ALD 183 (DB) , 2016 (4) ALD 83 r 2007 (2) SCC 349 one grievous injury. The petitioner got examined the doctor, who has assessed the disability of the petitioner as PW2. As per the evidence of PW2, the petitioner sustained fracture of shaft femur grade - 2 compound communited fracture apart from injuries on the left fore arm ald other injuries on the head/scalp. PW2 deposed that due to the squatting of the leg, knee joint movement is restricted and thereby the petitioner sustained 307o permanent disabiiity.

10. As per Ex.A4, the disability certified by PW2 is alleged to be partiai and permanent in nature. Further, the accident alleged to have taken place on 31.05.2O12 and whereas the Ex.A5 disabiligr certihcate was issued on O8.O1.2016 i.e. more than three and half years from the date of accident. It is to be observed that during the period of three and half years, the chance of recovering from the said injury at least to some extent is more. A "partial and permanent" injury means an injury that has caused damage to a part of the body, impacting its function, but does not completely disable the person from performing all his activities. In fact, such injury has a lasting impairment that affects their ability to work or live normatly to a certain degree, but not entirely. \ 1 1. A perusal of Ex.AS discloses that there is difficulty to the petitioner in walking, sitting and there is shortening of leg. But surprisingly PW2 did not depose the difliculties that are faced by the petitioner/PW1 in his chief examination- The only aspect deposed by PW2 in his chief examination is that due to the disability the petitioner cannot undertake labour hard work. In the chief examination of the petitioner as PW1, he deposed that he is working as ofhce boy. Thus, the question of doing hard labour work does not arise. Moreover, the petitioner did not establish that due to the injuries his capacity to earn has been reduced. Mere difficulty in sitting and walking cannot be termed as disabiliry. That apart, as per Ex.AS, the leg of the petitioner, was alleged to have been shortened. But surprisingiy, passport size photograph of the petilioner was afhxed on the disability certificate under EX.AS. Usually the photograph showing the deformity or disability of the injured will be afllxed on the disability certificate but not a passport size photograph. Without the foolscap size photograph of the injured, it cannot be assessed with regard to the shortening of the leg or any other deformity or disability of the injured. Moreover, PW2 did not depose or menlion in Ex.AS as to which extent the leg of petitioner/ PW I was shortened.

12. Further, Ex.A5 was issued just two months before the date of examination of PW2. It appears that only for the plrrpose of this case, during the pendency of the case, the petitioner alleged to have visited PW2 and obtained Ex.AS. If at all the petitioner has suffered any disabiliry, the petitioner ought to have consulted the nearest orthopedic hospital at the relevant point of time. It is the case of the petitioner that he has sustained permanent disability and whereas Ex.A5 discloses that the disability is of partial permanent. Since, the disability is partial and permanent in nature, there is every chance of recovering from the said injuries. All these aspects create any amount of suspicion with regard to genuineness of Ex.AS.

13. In view of the above discussion, the principtes laid down in the above said decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the petitioner/pW1 is not entitled for any amount towards disability, especially when there is any amount suspicion or ambiguily with regard to the genuineness of Ex.AS.

14. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,O0O/ - for the grievous injury sustained by the peLitioner, however, it appears that the same is on lesser side. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,00O/ - for the fracture injury sustained by the petitioner. So far as the compensation amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for the three simpie injuries i.e., Rs.S,OOO/- to each of the three injuries is appearing to be just and sufhcient. Further, the compensation amount of Rs.2O,O00/- awarded by the learned Tribunal for the pain and suffering also appearing to be just and appropriate.

15. It is pertinent to note that though the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs-20,OOO/- towards future expenses for removal of implants, it failed to award any amount for the medical and hospital expenses already incurred by the petitioner for treatment. The petitioner underwent surgery at Mediciti Hospital, Hyderabad arld also obtained treatment for a period of one week from 31.O5.2O12 to O6.O6.2O12 as inpatient. However, except hling discharge summary, the petitioner has not frled any documentary evidence to establish the hospital arrd medical expenses incurred by the petitioner at Mediciti Hospital. The petitioner alleged to have obtained treatment at Pavan Sai Hospital, Nagole as per Ex.A6. The petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 1,0O,0O0/- towards extra nourishment and medical expenses. The learned Tribunal awarded arr amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. The impugned order is silent with regard to grant of any amount for hospital and medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. Further, PW2 in his evidence expressed that the .petitioner might have incurred about Rs.30,OOO/- Lo Rs.40,000/- towards expenditure for surgery. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and also taking into consideration tlre evidence of PWs I and 2 coupled with Exs.A4 and A6, this court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses.

16. A perusal of the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal,'it is clear that the petitioner alleged to have been working as office boy in ITC Company and earning Rs.9,OOO/- per month bul he failed to produce any documentary evidence to establish that he was earning Rs.9,O00/- per month. In such circumstances, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.18,O0O/- towards loss of earnings by hxing the monthly salary of t1.e petitioner at Rs.6,0OO/- for the bed ridden period of three months. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.5,OOO/- towards transportation, which is appearing to be just and sufficient. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interfere with findings of the learned Tribunal so far as the compensation awarded by the leamed Tribunal under the heads 'loss of earnings' and 'transportation' is concerned. \ t0

17. Further, the learned Tribunal failed to award any amount under the head 'attendant charges'. Due to fracture injury, the petitioner may not have discharged his day to day activities due to the injuries sustained by him during the bed ridden period. Hence, an amount of Rs.5,00O/- is awarded towards attendant charges.

18. In view of the above facts and circumstances, in all, the appellant/claimalt is entitled for the compensation under various heads, as follows SI.No. Name of the head 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 expenses for simple injuries Pain and sufferance Future hospital removal of implants One fracture injury (Rs.2s,ooo x i) For (Rs.5,OO0/- x 3) Attendant charges Transportation expenses Extra nourishment Hospital and Medical bills [,oss of earnings (Rs.6,OO0/ - months) x3 Compensation awarded to the claimant (Rs.) 2O,OOO/- 20,OOOl- 2s,ooo l- 15,ooo/- s,ooo/- s,o00/- s,o00/- 4O,jOO/- 18,000/- Total 1,53,000/-

19. The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest @ 8Vo pet annum from the date of petition till the date of decree and thereafter @ 60/o per annum till realization. However, as per the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. TL Rajbir Singh and othersa this Court is inclined to leduce the rate of interest granted by the learned Tribunal from 8% per annum to 7 -5o/o per annum.

20. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 1,03,000/, to Rs. 1,53,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.So/o per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to him without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/- A.SREENIVASA REDOY GISTRAR ASSI //TRUE COPY// OFFICER To

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. T VISWARUPA CHARY, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. N MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.625 o12017 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 0l HIGH COURT DATED:1710212025 t I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.625 of 20'll ,-r s a7 Itl t , A ,Y *s .\. ^_\ ', .i !,] ,-t ,,t ' ,./ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS