The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. Pallati Chandramouli Counsel for the Respondent No2: S.A.V.Ratnam The Court made the following: JUDGMENT , :, . . ...:.;:_ . ' !r':r-:f: r :l 1 THID HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.27 of 2O23 JUDGMEIIIT: Hear,J Sri P. Chandramouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the entire record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the award passt:d by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional ,Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.48 of 2015, dated 14.11.2022, wherein an amount of Rs.54,0951- was awarded in a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained in a road traffic accident.

3. The zrppellant met with a road traffic accident on 06.09.2014 at about 19:30 hours, when he was proceeding as an inmate in auto bearing No.AP 23 1'A 1934 from Sangareddy to Mudimanikyam village along with others. When the auto reached Kulabgoor village limits, the driver of one auto trolley bearing No.i\P 23 8569, which was proceeding in opposite direction in rash and negligent manner with high speed lost control and dashed the iluto in wrong side. This caused the appellant and other inmates l tolfall outside the auto resulting in fracture injuries. On account of the RY,J MACMA 27 2023 losses and expenses incurred due to injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed claim petition against respondent No.1-owner and respondent No.2-insurer of the auto bearing No.AP 23 8569 seeking compensation from them jointly and severally.

4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.l and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-l to A-8. Respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B-l i.e., true copy of the insurance policy. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.54,095/- along with interest at 7.5%o per annum leading to filing of the present appeal

5. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the appellant has lost his avocation due to multiple fracture injuries and the disability certificate is not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Further, it is pleaded that the appellant was an agriculturist-cum-labourer and he was earning an amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. The fracture injuries are preventing the appellant from doing agriculture which involves hard manual labour work and therefore, he is suffering with permanent disability which'also results in loss of earning due to I0A% functional disability, as such enhancement of compensation is sought. / J J 2 i t: T i 4 i i r i T ! I I RY,J MACMA 27 2023

6. In the,J context, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the judgment of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Routhu Likitha v. L. Srinivas Ra,ot, wherein it is held as follows: "8. c)...The evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A6-discharge summary would shorv ttrat the claimant was treated in the Vaishnavi Hospital of P.W.2, That P. W.2 is a qualified doctor and that he treated the claimant are not dispute,l by the respondents, though it was suggested that he is not competent to issue disability certificate. When a doctor is qualified and treated the patient, he will be competent to speak about the disability of the patient. He stands in the position of an expert and his evidence will be rele,rant under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court may accept or reject his opinionative evidence having regard to other facts ard circumstances connecting to the case, but his evidence cannot be rejected on the sole ground that he is a private doctor and the disability certificate was not issued by the Medical Board. In the instant case, the Tribunal rejected Ex.A-8-disability certificate issued by P.\\'.2 on the sole ground that it rvas not issued by the Medical Board zmd that P.W.2 is a private doctor. That approach is not correct. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 with reference to Ex.A-8 has to be objectively assessed before coming to a conclusion regarding disability of the claimant."

7. In rer;ponse, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the appellant in right perspective and awarded compensation and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere'with in the impugned award.

8. The e:vidence of P.W.2 i.e., Dr. K. Raju Goud is that the appellant was admittr:d on 07.09.2014 with a history of road traffic accident with 'zor5qALD r17 : : I T I 3 RY,J MACMA 27 2023 head injury and with left frontal bone fracture. The said injury was treated conservatively and the patient paid an amount of Rs.19,0951- towards medical treatment bill. P.W.2 further deposed that due to the head injury suffered, the appellant experiences frequent giddiness and therefore, suffered 30o/o partial permanent disability. Ex.A-8-disability certificate is issued by P.W.2.

9. As per Ex.A-3-medicolegal certificate, the appellant suffered abrasion over shoulders, blunt irju.y in chest, head injury and left frontal bone fracture. The injuries are grievous in nature. The accident occurred on 06.09.2014, whereas the medicolegal certificate was obtained on

21.09.2014. As per Ex.A-4, the appellant was admitted on 07.09.2014 and was'discharged on 11 .09.2014 from Sri Sai Ram Multispeciality Hospital. The injury suffered by the appellant is to the head. There is no evidence to suggest that the head injury resulted in physical incapacity of the appellant to carry out his work as an agricultural labourer. It is unfounded to claim that head inj.r.y which could be treated in four days could result in complete loss of eamings on account of loss of present avocation, as the appellant was discharged in a stable condition within four days. The avocation of the appellant as claimed by him is agricultural labourer, which wou$ be on temporary basis, unless he has his own agricultural lands. In 4 RY,J MACMA 27 2023 the absence of such evidence, it is to be deemed that the appellant was a labourer, wlto was engaged as daily wage labourer. The injuries which can be treated in four days nray not result in 100% functional disability. In the absence of such evidence, 100% functional disability cannot be considered.

10. Accor:ding to P.W.2, disability is of 30o/o which may or may not occasionalll'result in loss of work. However, due to the inconvenience that the appellant may lace for the rest of his life an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is hereby granted to the said discomfort experienced on account of giddiness in addition to the compensation of Rs.54,095 l- already awarded by the Tribunal. In total, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,54,095/- towards conrpensation. I l. '[n the, result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation awarded b:i the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.54,095i- to Rs.1r54,095/- with interest atgo/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgrnent. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, rvithout furnishing any security. The appellant shall deposit 5 RY,J MACMA 27 2023 deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand crosed. SD/ - T.SRINtrVASA REDDY ASSISTAI\T REGTSTRAR //TRUE COPYII ECTION OFFICER To, Judge, citv civir court, Hyderabad..(with records if any) AOroJJie lOeUCl

1. the chairman. Motor Accident craims Tribunar _cuM_xrv Addr 2. One CC to- SRt. pailati'CnlnOramorli 3. One CC to SRt.S.A.V.Ratnam, Advocate [OpUCJ 4. Two CD Copies Chief ,rt p I 6 / I S o O [il J ?[,16 2 1 * HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 JUDGMENT lvlACtvlA. N o.27' of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALI,OWED r, \ h IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THURSDAY THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL EOUS APPEAL NO: 27 OF 2023 Between Anthangari Srisailam, S/o Hanmaiah Aged about 35 (Previously working as Agriculture cum Labour) R/o Pulkal Mandal, Medak District years, Occ. Presently Nil H.No 3-88 Minpur Village ... Petitioner/Appellant AND

1. Dasari Balaiah, S/o Pochaiah Aged Major, Occ. Qwner of Auto bearing No. AP 23 U 8569 R/o H:No. 4-4, Faizabad Village Kovydipally Mandal, Medak District

2. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. ' Claims Hub, Church Building Tilak Road, Ab its Divisional Ma ids, Hyderabad-S0i LII?$81' 0001 , T.P Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 48 of 2015 dated.1411112022 on the file of the Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -CUtVl-XlV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Chandramouli, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri S.A.V.Ratnam, Advocate for the respondent No.2. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed; 2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.54,095/- to Rs.1,54,095/- with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of Two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgmernt;

4. That on such rleposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security;

5. That the appellant shall deposit deficit court fee, if any; 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/ - T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -CUM-XIV Addl. Chief .Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records if any)

2. Two CD Copies PSL W n HIGH COURT DATED:07108t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.2-; of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALI,OWED \v