The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellants: SRl. p RADHIVE REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent Nol: N/A Counsel for the Respondent No2: SRI N J SUNIL KUMAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.N0.734 of 2OO9 JUDGMENT: Tlris appcal is filed against lhe Order dated 21. 12.2OO5 tn O.P.No.636 of 2001 passed by the Ie arned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Il-Additional District Judge (F.T.C)), Nizamabacl. 2- Tl-re petitron ulde O.P.No.636 of 2OO1 was hled by one Gangoni Susl'rar-rlh Kumar, claiming compcnsation of Rs.2,00,OOO/ - for the injuries sustained by hrm in a road accident occurred on 27 .OL.2OO I . He e xamined himself as P.W. 1 ancl also got examined P.Ws.2 and 3 on I'ris behalt and marked trxs.A 1 Lo ,\9 on his behall and no evidence was adduced on behalf of thc respondents. The trial Court after considering thc oral and clocumentarv evidence on record, direcled thc respondcnls to pay an amoullt of Rs.2O,000/ @ 7 .Sok per annum from the date of hling the petition till realization, to the appellant/ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said award. petitioner therein preferred the present appeal, seeking to enhance the compensalion amount grantecl by the trial Court. .:':-::. 2

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 2Z.OL.2OO7, the appellant herein as a rider and one Dathri Madhu as a pillion rider were proceeding on a scooter bearing No.Ap 25 E 79g from Nizamabad to Dichpally. When they reached ne-ar Madhavnagar Village at about 4:00 PM, the driver of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 25 E 6227, drove it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed their scooter. As a result, the petitioner and the pillion rider lell dou,n and lhe petitioner sustained fracture to both jaws, skull and left hand, injuries on face and head and he lost his uppcr and lower tceth. 'l'he p.S.Nizamabad Rural registered a case in Crime No.2 1 of 2001 under Section 338 of IPC.

4. The learned Counsel for the appellant/ petitioner mainly contended that the trial Court ought to have consider the income of the appellant as Rs.10,OOO/- per month as he was working as a mechanic. The trial Court has not granted any compensation towards luture medical expenditurc, transportation and extra nourishment. He further contended that the trial Court ought to have granted interest @ l2o/o per annum instead of 7.5o/o per annum. Therefore, requested the Court to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court. :f:-'t-. e'-"*--/- *,/ J

5. Perusal of the record sho$'s that the appellant was aged arbout 22 ycars and u'as doing motor mechanic work and carning Rs.10,OOO/- per month, but he has no examined any rvitness or filed any income proof to substantia te his version' l'I're reforc, Lhis Court considcring the age and nalure of work rlor-re by Lhc appellanl, (hds it rcasonable to take che income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month. The P.W.3-doctor, who tle:rted rhe appellant, stated that appellant v,'as admitted in lrcrspital on 27 .Ol.2OO I and discharged on 07.03.20O 1. He also stated that he removed five fractured teeth and replaced them and also issued trx.A3 wound certihcate, which reveals that the petitioner sustained simple injury on thigh, periosteal bine, root stlrmps u'as done, and laccration on hip and chin and also sustained fracture of canine to canine and thus this Court finds rt reasonable Lo grant an amount of Rs.20,O0O/ - for the injuries sustained bv hirn.

6. Appcllant/ petitioner was hospitalized and underwent surgery', as such he might have suffered pain and suffering and thus this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.15,0OO/ tou,ards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities, Rs.10,OOO/- for transportation, Rs.5,OO0/ for attendant charges, Rs. i0,000/- for extra nourishment and 4 t Rs.1O,OOO/- towards medical expenses. Apart from that he could not attend duties for at least 6 months, as such this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.30,OOO/ towards loss of income 7 . Therefore, the appellant/ petitioner is entitled for the compensation in the lollowing terms: 1 2 a 4 .J 6 7 8 Injuries Loss of Income Pain and Suffering Loss of Amenitics Extra Nourishment Transportation Attendant charges Medical Expenses TOTAL Rs.20,000/ - Rs.3O,00O/ Rs. 15,000/- .Rs.15,0o0/- Rs.1O,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.1O,OOO/- Rs.1,15,OOO/-

8. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount granted by the trial Court from Rs.20,0O0/- to Rs.1,15,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only) with intcrest at the rate of T.Sh per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. Though all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay compensation, respondent No_2/insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On !.I I I I t To, 5 st-rch deposit, appellant/ petitioner is permitted to u.ithdrarn. the said amount along with the interest accrued on it. 'l'l-rere s1-rall be no order as to costs. I\lisccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- T JAYA SREE DEPUW REGISTRAR r8,4' SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District iri"E.'iiiCl Nizamaoao, (with records' if anv) .- -. . ni.-F nnon iVe neoo, Advocate {oPUCl b"J ci'r" . 6;; 6c io sni. r.r L suuu KUIMAR, Advocate [oPUC] . Two CD CoPies 2 3 4 *s ,/ i: i I I I I I I i I t I i ! I HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.734 of 2009 :-,---.'-\ * l,- 1r stP 2$15 i '.::..:-:i: . ttil l); =,., \ -:i *" .-t: . / /A r'o/-/ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I [3208] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 734 OF 2009 Between: Gangoni Sushanth Occ.Mechanic, Rl/o District. Kumar, S/o. Bhaktha Gangaramanda Village, Pothanna, Aged Makloor lVlandal, 27 years, Nizamabad ...ClaimanUAppellant AND

1. B. I\Iahipal Goud, S/o. Hanma Goud, Business Owner of Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing No.AP25F 622, Rl/o.Janakampet Village, Velpur tt4andal, Nizamabad. District.

2. National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Branch Manager, Branch [\/anager, National lnsurance Company Limited Branch Office, B.Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of lVlotor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.No.636 of 2OO1 daled.21 .12.2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, (FTC) N lzamabad. 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 tvlVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. P RADHIVE REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and SRI N J SUNIL KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. 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 amount granted by the trial Court from Rs.20,0001 to Rs.1 ,1 5,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization. -.r,1:'-r'

2. That though all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay com pensation.

3. That the respondent No.2/insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

4. That on such deposit, a ppella nt/petition er is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with the interest accrued.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other respects: and

6. That there be no order as to costs in the appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- T JAYA SREE DEPUry REGISTRAR SEC N OFFICER 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District 2. fwo CD Copies Judge, (FTC) Nlzamabad. To, J HIGH COURT DATED: 1910312025 DECREE MACMA.N0.734 of 2009 // { a h 5 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS