The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A. M.A .NO.13 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the order and Decree dated 03.10.2019 in M.V.o.p.No.30 of 2017 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Siddipet (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunar was that on

16.10.2016, the petitioner along with his family members were going to siddipet from his village on his motor bike bearing No.TS-EK- 6460 for the treatment of his children, and when they reached near Polytechnic college in the outskirts of rhornara village, an lndica car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner in opposite direction, as a result the petitioner and his family members fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner undenruent inpatient treatment and incurred huge expenditure. Thus, he sought a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte 2 ETD,J MACMA No.13 2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that the driver of the car was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7 - Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues.- "1- whether accidentt had occurrect due to the rash and negrigent driving of the driver of the car bearing No.Ap-29-e-ggg2?

2. 3 4 whether the claimant is entitted for compensation? tf so, to what extent and from whom? Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and insurance company of motor cycle bearing No.TS_EK_6460? To what relief? 8- To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pws 1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. on behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

9. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.97,2461-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeklng enhancement of compensation. I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.13_2021

10. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Sri Harinath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Smt. A Malathi, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the claimant could prove his case before the tribunal by getting the doctor examined as PW2, who deposed that he would require future medical treatment, but the tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future medical expenditure. He further argued that though he filed all the bills, only part of his medical bills were awarded by the tribunal. He therefore, prayed to award transport charges and also the incidental expenses and some amount towards pain and suffering and enhance the compensation by considering the said aspects.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal has already granted huge amounts under the head of transportation awarding Rs.23,500A towards compensation and that no evidence is lead by the petitioner with regard to the future medical expenses and that the tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and thus, prayed to uphold the same. , ETD,J MACMA No.13_2021

13. Based on the above submissions, this court frames the following points for consideration:- 1' Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2. whether the order and Decree passed by the Tribunat need any interference?

3. To what relief?

14. Point No.1:- a) The grievance of the appellant is that the tribunal has granted meager amount towards compensation. lt is the pleaded case of the petitioner that he sustained grievous injuries in a Road Traffic Accident as he was hit by a cai' beai-ing i.io.Ap-29-e-ggg2. in support of his case he got examined pW2. b) PW2lDr. l.s.surendra who is an orthopedic surgeon, his evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained three fracture injuries and that he was treated as inpatient and that their hospital has issued Ex-A3, As and 46. The Ex.A7 pertains to the foilow-up treatment of the petitioner. lt is elicited in his cross examination that the petitioner was treated under the Employee Health Scherne, which is cashless. c) , PW4 is the Headmaster of zpHS and his evidence reveats that the petitioner used to work as a Government reacher, Telugu 5 ETD,J MACMA NO.13-2021 Pandit in their school, since December, 200g and that he was unable to attend to his duties from 16.10.2016 to 08.12.2016 and that they have sanctioned 54 days of Medical Leave to the claimant which is encashable at the time of retirement, which comes to Rs.65,537/-. The discharge summaries under Ex.AS reveals that the petitioner was treated under Emptoyee Health Scheme as inpatient at siddartha Hospital, siddipet under Aarogya Mithra scheme and that he was treated from 22.10.2016 to 26.10.2016. since, it is already elcited that he was given free treatment under Employee Health scheme, no amount towards the inpatient bill needs to be awarded. However, he filed certain medical bills pertaining to different dates in November and Decmebe r-2016, Januar y 2011 to an extent of Rs.7,746l-. d) Ex.AB discloses that he was sanctioned commuted Leave for a period of 54 days. Ex.A9 is the bill towards transportation charges to an extent of Rs.23,500/- issued by one Nakka swamy towards hiring his auto bearing No.TS15-uB-3ss0. Thus, the evidence on record discloses that the petitioner sustained fracture injuries and undennrent treatment, but it was for free of cost. However, Rs.l,z46l- needs to be awarded towards purchase of medicines and sorne arnount towards pain and suffering and the incidental expenses have to be awarded in this case. 6 ETO,J MACMA No.13 2021 e) The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate and hence, no amount towards future earnings is awarded 0 With regard to the pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded, keeping in view the trauma undenruent by the petitioner due to the injuries sustained in the accident. g) with regard to the misceltaneous expenses, such as transportation, Rs.23,s00/- is awarded, as per the bilts produced by the petitioner. h) Therefore, Tribunal has awarded Rs.g7,z46l-, while, this court arrived at a compensation of Rs.1,31,2461- and hence, it is held that the claimant is entifled to enhancement of compensation. Thus, Point No.1 is answered accordingty

15. Point No.2:- ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1,31,2461- from that of Rs.97 ,1461- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. .'-'-. ...t'---< 7 ETD,J MACMA No.13 2021

15. POTNT NO.3: ln the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.10.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.30 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Siddipet, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.97,7461 to Rs.1,31 ,2461 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The lnsurance Company is 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 the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. / SD'.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY" OFFICER To, $v

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Siddipet.

2. One CC to SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to MRS. A. MALATHI Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL \ L 1 \ HIGH COURT DATED:22lAAl2O25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.13 of 202'! S 2 1 lr\{ ?t?[ * {- i PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t, $ $ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT l3aa1 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 13 OF 2021 Between: Boini Kanakaraju, S/o. Anjaiah , Aged 34 years, Occ Govt Teacher, R/o H.NO 4-100, Kasulabad Village of Mirdoddi Mandal, Siddipet Dist. ,..APPELLANT'C LAIMANT AND 't. Jambula Venkat, S/o. Narayana Reddy, Aged 46 years,R/o. H. No. 8-7512, Jagadevpir Mllage, And Mandal Siddipet Dist. ( Owner cum driver of Crime Vehicle i.e, lndica Car bearing No AP28Q9992)

2. The Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., TP Hub and OD Dept, 2nd Floor Possnet Bhavan, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. (The Respondent No.1 is not necEssary parties in this Appeal) ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 03.10.2019 passed in M.V. O.P. No. 30 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District Judge, (FTC), Siddipet. 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 argument of SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and MRS. A. MALATHI, Advocate appeArcd for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Dectee as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Apdeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.97,746/- to Rs.1,31,246l-.

3. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and that the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited.

4. That the lnsurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two monlhs from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. on such deposit, the appeilant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDI-M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llTrue Copyll To

1. The Chairma Judge, (FTC) 2. Two CD Copies n, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lV Additional District , Siddipet. GE/PSL N OFFICER HIGH COURT DECREE ilACMA.No.l3 of 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS q