The High Court · 2025

3. The contention of the petitioner before the leamed Tribunal was that due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries, '/ J lvrn,J ,lAcMA |ft.165 ol 2O2o two upper teeth .,verc broken, sustained fiacture injurt to his lefl hand elbow and right leg up to thigh rvas amputated and I was treated as inpatient for fif'teen days and underwent surgical ol)c: ltroll for rvhich the petitioner had incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,0i )L towards his treatment and clairned an amount of Rs.20,00,000 rLnder various heads as compensation lbr the said accident.

4. Before the lcamed 'fribunal, Respondents Nos I 3 and 4/driver of the RTC bus bearing No.TS l5 UA 7145, owner r'offending bus and Insurance Company respectively entered their p,pearance and Itled their respective counters. Respondent No.2 rema t ed ex-parte. 5: The respondcnt Nos. l, 3 and 4 filed their co, nter-affidavits, denying all the averments made in the claim petitrcr, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avoca: tn and income of the petitioner and and lurther contended that rl( compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to di rniss the claim pehtlon. 4 ]VNR,.T MAc IA l{0.765 ol 2O2o

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the leamed Tribunal fiamed the following issues, which reads as under: " 1. Wether the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the motor accident is due b the negligent parkng of the driver of crime vehicle?

2. llthether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, as prayed for? i,f so, at whut amount and from whom? 3- To what relief/ 7 . After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 6"/o pet arnum

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the grounds that the leamed 'lribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the RTC bus, however, not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. y' - ] i I I t 5 lv!{R,., MACMA I!o.165 of 2O2O

9. The petitioner, to prove his claim for compen; tion, examined PWs,l to 4 and marked Ex.A1 to A9 and Ex.Xl an: provedthat he sustained 85% physical disabitity due to the accident and respondent No.4/National lnsurance Company Limited did not cl cose to adduce any oral evidence but marked Ex.Bl

10. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further ;()ntended that petitioner was hale and healthy and was aged 23 y,: rs and earning Rs.20,000/- per month by doing laundry work as n the date of accident. The petitioner was adrnitted in a prilr r,r hospital at Sangareddy and he rvas discharged from the said hosp tal and he was taken to Gandhi Hopsital. Leamed counsel further rgued that the petitioner is unable to attend his avocation and day-t,r c,ay works and also contended that the petitioner has suffered perr i lent disability, but the learned Tnbunal without taking into considrr rlion of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-, ,r rich is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so r so under other -) 6 rral&J YACYA ,Io. 165 of 2O2O

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that there ls no dispute with regard to accident, injunes sustained by the petitioner and tiability on the respondents. Ex.A3 injury certificate, Ex.A5 Discharge Summary, Ex.A8 Disability Certificate, clearly shows that the right leg of the petitioner was amputated up to knee.

12. Leamed counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned 'Iribunal ought to have awarded Rs.20,000/- towards loss of eaming and 100% functional disabitity, but the leamed Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month towards loss of eamings and taken 50% as functional disability and the also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain and sufferance, loss of earnings during the period of stay in the hospital, future treatment, future prospects of marriage and for purchase of artificial limb and awarded Rs.10,00,000/- in total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7 N]YA,J tActs^ I,lo,165 o! 2O2O

13. Leamed counsel for the respondent No.4 srr ,rnits that after considerinq the entire evidcnce available on rec ) iL. the leamed l'ribunal has awarded just compcnsation, which neerl: r,:r interference

14. Heard Srl Y.Ashok /?a/, leamed counsel for tl : petitioner and Sri I. Maamu Vani., leamed counsel for rs respondent No.4/Insurance Company. Perused tlre rnaterial on rcc r rl

15. Admittedly, respondents havc not filed cross-a I ),jrl against the Award passed by the learned -fribunal. As such, tn,) c is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrenc( rl the accident. The only point that arise belore this Courl in this app,: I is that: i) Wteth.er the petitioner is entitled for L\e enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point NoJ

16. It is an admitted fact that on I 1.04.2017 the pt 1 turner/claimant was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 23 V 3346 ar I the same was hit by thc RfC bus bearing No.TS l5 UA7145 anri luc to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuri: and he was I I I I E I i I 1 l 8 JVIIR,J BACEA No. t65 ol 2O2O /1 admitted in the Hospital and his right leg was amputated above the knee, he lost two teeth and sustained multiple inlunes

17. The main grievance of the appellant/claimant before this Court is that the leamed Tribunal has awarded RS.10,00,000/- though the claim was made for Rs.20,00,000/- by the petitioner. As seen from the record, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner's right leg was amputated up to knee and as per Ex.AS the percentage of disability of the petitioner is 85% as per the certificate issued by the Medical Board, which is related to nght lower limb, which is also proved by examining the Doctor, who has confirmed about the disabitity sustained by the petitioner. 'fhere is no rebuttal evidence placed by respondent No.4 about the injuries sustained by the petitioner. In the absence of any such evidence, it can be safely concluded that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 85% for the purpose of quantiffing compensation, further, the percentage of the functional disability has to be decided fbr quantifoing compensation. For the pu4)ose of the same, as it requires that the avocation of the petitioner has to be looked into, it is the contention of the,petitioner l\ I I i: i I t' i! I t I r I i l I 9 IJNR,J t{AcMA No.165 of 2O2O that he is Dhobi b1 profe ssion and he was doing lau i lrv work befbre the accident and PWI examined PW3, who belong: o their Village, I'}W3 being the customer of PWI stated that he userl t r pav Rs.2,000/- per month to the petitioner for washing and iron;r g their c)othes, admittedly, there are 15 members in the famity ol' F v\'3, thou.gir the Iearned counsel for respondent No.4 contended that r r1:re is no piece of evidencc placed by the petirioner to prove that thc : :r.itioner uscd to earn Rs.20,0001- per month, obviously would not ,ot any irrcome proof and expecting such income proof flom the pers c n like clairnant, who is dependent on washing clothes may not be aplr opriate, irr such case, considering the evidence of PWs. I and 3 an: rs there is no denial and it is not the case of the respondent No.4 tr rl the petitioner does not belong to the said community or does not atti rui such laundry u,ork, in the absence of any such evidence, cou:i It:ring that the petitioner/claimant was attending the laundry work a I t,tional income can be fixed.

18. Learned Tribunal has taken the notional income ,l'the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month and it appears that there is nr rrrsis for t:king J ! I I ! i ; i ; 10 -IINR,J &ac A No.r6s ol2o2o i\ such notional income by the learned Tnbunal. As seen from the circular issued by the District Colle ctor and District Magistrate, Rangareddy District for the relevant period of 2017-18 an unskilled labour or semi-skilled labour would be earning Rs.432/- in Municipal area and Rs.348/- in rural area per day, even il the said area of the petitioner is taken as rural area, the income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.348/- per day and the monthly income of the petitioner would be Rs.10,440l- per month

19. Further, the leamed Tribunal, having considered the disability, which is also proved by the petitioner by examining PW4 Dr.P.Anand Naik, who rendered treatment to the petitioner, who has issued the disability certificate stated that he is one of the mernber of the Medical Board and after examining the claimant, they have issued disability certificate under Ex.A8 and the disability sustained was 85%o, he further stated that though the claimant suffered 85o/o ol physical disability, his functional disability is 100%, though he was cross- examined, in the cross-examination except suggesting that the percentage of the disabiliry given by the Doctor is excessive and they 11 ,\,?IR,J IVACMA No.165 of 2O2O have denied about 100% functional disability, except I rat, nothing has bcen elicited to shou, that thc petitioner has n,r rustained 85o/o disability. Admittedly, it is the case where, there is r r amputation of right leg above the knee level, to come to a conclusio r with regard to the lunctional disability, admittedly, the petitioner helr rir was rvorking as a Dhobi and doing laundry work and washinl: ol clothes. by considering thc ground reality, in such case and natL r; of the *,ork, u'hich thc petitioncr used to attend, obviously, the arr 1 L lation o1'right leg '"vould have impact on functional ability to attend I r: u ork, ,"r'hich he is doing, as such, this Court is of the opinion th.r the functional drsabitity in such case has to be taken at 85%o t)r,ugh pW.l has assessed in respect of physical disability, taking the funciional disability at 85'k, this Court would like to venturc u rcassess the compensation, which the claimant is entitled for.

20. Further, the petitioner is aged about 26 years i r on the dzrte of the said accident as pcr the med ical record, he wou I I trc cntitled tbr 400lo enhancement towards future prospects, wlt ch comes to Rs. 14,616/- (Rs 10.440/-x40/100:Rs.4,1761-), lor t (: age group 72 NNR,J UAc A No.165 o! 9O2O n between 26-30, the multiplier applicable is '17', so, as per National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and otherst , and Sarla Verma vs Dethi Transport Corporation2 the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,34,414l- (Rs. 14,616l-xl2xl'1x85l100) taking disabilily at 85o/o. Further, the learned lrial Court granted Rs.65,000/- towards pain and suffering, loss of earnings during the period of his stay in the hospital as an inpatient for his treatment, future treatment, loss of future marriage prospects and purchase of artificial timb, in all the petitioner was awarded Rs.25,000/-. This Court is inclined to award an amount of Rs.1,00,0001- towards extra- nourishment, attendant charges, loss of amenities. Zl. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference Head A.Eou-at arrived at by the Tribunal ArEou.rrt arrived at by this Court I zotz l.cJ 2zoo 'z 2oo9 ACJ 1298 (sc) l l 1 I I I t i ! I J i' 13 NNR,J ACMA No.165 oJ 2o2o Rs.9 07 200 Rs.65,000/- Rs 4t4l- 5 34 Rs ti5,000/- Rs.25,000/- Rs 125,000/- Rs, L,OO,OOO/- Loss of future earning Loss of pain and suffering, loss of earnings during stay in the hospit:rl, fuiure treatmen t, loss of marriage prospccts Purchase of artificial Extra-nou rishrnent, Attendant charges ald loss amenities Total rounded off to Rs.1O,O0,0OO/- Rs.21',24,4141-

22. Admittedly, the RTC bus bearing No.TSi 15 UA 7145 involved in the accident is owned by respond<:.r- No.3, hired by respondent No.2, driven by respondent No and insured with respondent No.4/lnsurance Companl , AS such, \ \ respondent No.4 is bound to pay the compeu; rtion. For the said reason, this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.4 (

23. In the result, the appeal is allowed by t rLharcing the compensation from Rs.1O,00,000/- to Fit.27,24,4L4/- (Rupees Twenty seven lakhs twenty four tl Lousald four 14 aaw'.r MACMA tb,los oJ 2O2O rI1 hundred and fourteen only) with the interest of 97o on the enhanced arnount of cornpensation from the date of petition till the date of rea-lization. However, the claimant sha.lt pay the dehcit Court Fee on the enhalced compensation. The respondent No.4 is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellalt/ clatrnant/ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There strall be no order as to costs. Miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stard closed. SD/. C DEEPIKA SSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and \ To, Sessions Judge, tVledak at Sangareddy. 2, One CC to Sri Y Ashok Raj, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. I Mammu Vani, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AI} I HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.165 of 2020 () C) 19 tE8 20?6 ir r)r 1,. . .t ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \1 o ) ) I [ 3/143 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 165 OF 2020 Between: Madhuri Janganatham @ Jagan, S/o Radaiah, age 23 years, Occ.Laundering work and Driver, R/o Chowtkur village, now residing at H-No.'1-92 at Nagapoor Village, Sangreddy Mandal, tVedak District. ...AppellanUClaimant AND

1. Suresh Goud, S/o Durgagoud, age. Major, Occ. Driver of Bus No. TS 15 UA 7145, TSRTC, Narayankhed Deot, H,No.5-68, R/o Munigepally village, Kalher It/andal, Sanga Reddy District T.S.

2. The Depot Manager, TSRTC, Narayankhed Depot. 3. R.K.Travels, represented by Chanti Kranthikiran, Age. Major Rlo 1-2812, pothulboguda village, Alladurg Mandal, It/edak District, Telangana State 502269.

4. The Regional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, R/o H.No. 4- 68/6, Mallreddy complex, Ferozguda, Bowenpally, Secunderabad,Telangana State 50001 1 ( Policy No.55160331 161000972, valid upto 25.1.2017 to 24.1 2018) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 289 ot 2017 dated 28-06-2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Y Ashok Raj, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. I Mammu Vani, Advocate for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows That the MACMA be and hereby is allowr: compensation from Rs.10,00,0001 to Rs.2Z,2.2. Lakhs Twenty Four Thousand, Four Hundred z interest of g% on the enhanced amount of comper petition till the date of realization. by enhancing the l14l (Twenty Seven rd Forteen) with the ;ation from the date of 2. That, however, the Claimant shall pay the def lt Court fee on the 3. That the Respondent No.4 is directed to deposit ftrr with costs and interest after giving due credit h deposited if any, within a period of two months frc r of this Judgment. ;aid amount together the amount already r the receipt of a copy enhanced compensation.

4. That on such deposit, the appellanVclaimanUpetilir permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing rr 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribuna rrer is be and hereby t1r surety. rhall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appe SD/. C DEEPIKA AS S SiTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ I I i sEcrtoN oFFtcER To, 1 2 The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-curr - ).incipal District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Two CD Copies ABK o I I HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 DECREE MACMA.No.165 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 0 9L