The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.L267 of 201O JTIDGMENT: Dissatisfied with the quantum of compenr;ation awarded in the order and decree, dated 1 1.08.20i)6 passed 1n O.P.No.8O5 of 2OO4 on the file of the Motor A:ciclent Claims Tribunal-cum- (lll District Judge, I F.T.C), at Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/ claimant preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the conrpensation

2. For tl-re sake of convenience, hereinafter, -he parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribr nal

3. Brief lacts of the case are that on 28.O7 .2004 at about 1O.00 am, while the petitioner and his bro,her by name Venkateshu,arlu, were going by the side o1 the road at Miryalaguda and when they reached in fror t of Swagath Hotel, the Jeep bearing No.AP 07 X 4166 (herr inafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') came in a rash and negligent manner from behind and dashed the petitioner, as a result, the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries Immediately, he was taken to Sri Sai Ortho Care Center al Miryalaguda, I I 2 MGP,J MACMA. 1267 2010 took treatment as inpatient ald spent huge amount for his treatment and medicines. Based on the complaint, a case in Crime No.ll2 of 2024 was registered against the driver of the jeep under Section 338 of IPC by Miryalaguda Town Police. According to the petitioner, he was hale and healthy at the time of accident and was working as auto driver and getting an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries received by him, he lost his income and not able to attend any work. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim petition against respondent Nos.l and 2, who are o\ rner and insurer of the crime vehicle, claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on various heads.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.2 filed counter and u,hereas respondent No.1 remained exparte. In the counter, the respondent No.2 denied the manner of the accident, treatmenL obtained by the petitioner, age, income, avocation of the petitioner and further denied the driving license of the driver. Respondent No.2 further contended that petitioner in collusion with the respondent No. 1, a false case has been hled and the claim of the compensation is excessive and thus, prayed to dismiss the petition. 1 \ \ \ J MGP,J MACMA r267 2010

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1)Wlrcther the petitioner sustained iluies in motor accident due to rash and negligen'. diuing of jeep bearing No.AP 7X 4166 bg its driuL:r? 2)Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to uhat exteni ? 3)To uhat relieft

6. Before the learned Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.Al to A6 were marked or behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of respondents, no oral cr documentary evidence was adduced.

7. Considering the rival contentions, the 1e rned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.30,50C,/- along with interest @ 7 .5% per anmrm from the date of >etition till the date of reahzation, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by .he same, the claimalt has filed this appeal seeking en hancement of compensation

8. Heard Sri Kiran, representing Sri M. Ra.l amalla Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appellant / claimant, Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel br respondent j 4 MGP,J MACMA_1267 20lO No.2 and perused the material available on record

9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant is that though the claim petitioner has proved the case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence, the learned Tribunal without considering the same has awarded meager amount. The learned Tribunal has also not awarded reasonable amount for the fractures, though were proved through the evidence of PW2 i.e., the doctor, who has provided treatment to the petitioner/ injured. Hence, prayed to al1ow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.

10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that after considering all the aspects, the learned Tribunal has an arded reasonabie compensation, for which, interference of this Court is unr,l,arranted

11. Now the point for consideration is: \lrhether tLrc appellant-petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation amount in addition to the compensation amount granted uide impugned Order?

12. POINT: This Court has perused the entire evidence both oral and documentary available on record. There is no ) I \ \*. --@ . il::ia-.:: s 5 MCP,J MACMA 1267 2010 dispute that the respondents have not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is n(, dispute that Ex.Bl insurance policy was subsistence as on -he date of the accident.

13. The claim petitioner as PW1 has reiterate C the contents of claim petition and deposed about the manr.er of accident and a-lso the injuries sustained by him. To pro'''e the injuries, he got examined PW.2/Dr.V.Srinivasa Raju. PW.2 in his evidence deposed that on 28.07.2OO4 he examirred PW. 1, who sustained fracture of Tibia of right leg and Fibr.rla of right 1eg ald abrasion over the right foot and that PV'. 1 underwent operation in his hospital and implants u,ere fi xed and PW. 1 was discharged on l4.Oa.2OO4. Apart from thc oral evidence of PW2, PW. t has relied upon Ex.A3/medi,:al certificate, Ex.44/medical bi1ls, Ex.A5 / prescriptions an( Ex.A6/x-ray fiims.

14. The evidence of PW.2 shows that PW t has taken treatment for l8 days AS in-patient. However', the learned Tribunal considering the injuries has awarded an amount of Rs.10,0OO/- to each of the two grievous injuries and I 6 MGP,.I MACMA_ 1267 20lO Rs.2,000/- for one simple injury. Considering the nature of injuries, this Court is of the opinion that these amounts appears to be meager and can be enhanced from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs.20,OOO l- i.e., to each of the two g{evous injuries and from Rs.2,OOO/- to Rs.5,0OOl- for one simple injury. Further, PW.2 deposed that PW.1 has paid an amount of Rs.27,100/- towards medicai expenditure under Ex.A4. However, the learned Tribunal without considering the same has awarded Rs.7,OO0/- towards medical expenditure. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider the same and award an amount of Rs.27, 100/- towards medical expenditure and treatment.

15. PW. 1 in his evidence stated that he is working as a auto driver and getting Income of Rs.5,O00/- per month. It is pertinent to state that except oral evidence, PW.l has not adduced any proof of income, however, as the accident occurred in the year 2OO4, the learned Tribunal has taken into consideration Rs.50/- per day (i.e., Rs.150O/- per month), which is on lesser side. Hence, this Court is inclined to consider Rs.100/- per day (i.e., Rs.3,OOO/ ) per month as income of the petitioner. Accordingly, loss of income for the ) ) '7 MGP,J I,1AC N,IA I267 20] O bed ridden period of one month as was taken cy the learned Tribunal at Rs. 1,500/- is enhanced to Rs.3,000 /-.

16. It is also pertinent to state that there is no dispute regarding rash and negligence of the drive r of the crime vehicle as the case has been registered under I)x.A1/FIR ald Ex.A2 lcharge sheet and the learned Tribunal ccnsidering the sarne, answered issue no. 1 that the accident or:cur-red due to \ rash and negligent driving of the crime vehiclc

17. Coming to the compensation amount, ali:r considering \ I the oral and documentary evidence adduced br the petitioner, this Court is of the considered opinion that rnterference of this Court n ith the impugned is necessary a,. the amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal under r arious heads appears to be meager , I

18. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal 1S partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from IIs.3O,SOO/- to Rs.75,100/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per annum. The compensation amcunt shall be I 8 MOP,J MACMA 1267 20tO deposited by respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such depbsit, petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending Miscellareous applications, if aly, shall stand closed. Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, llotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge, (FTC) at Nalgonda, (With Records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V.SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Yy To I i i i i l ) HIGH COURT DATED: 0510312025 a JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1267 of 2010 { J o o ,r€ STAiE 1 , 6 i\ri{ N6 9 Z o >t .x t, PARTLY ALLOWED I 6 1|r IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1267 OF 20'10 Between: Gudipati Lingaiah, S/o.Ramaiah, aged about 29 years, Occ: Driver of auto RJo. Japathiveerappagudem Village, Presently r/o Kothagudem of Nalgonda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda Diskict. ...PETITIONERYAPPLNT AND '1. Shaik Karimulla, S/o. Abdullah, Occ: Owner of the Jeep bearing No. AP-07-X- 4'166 R/o. D.No.3-11, Uppalapadu Post, Pedanandipadu Village of Guntur District- 522001

2. The National lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by its Divrsional Manager, Mogul Courts, Babukhan Estate, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS/Res pts Appeal filed under Section 173 of fi/lotor vehicles Act., against the Judg jent and decree, made in O.P.NO. 805 of 2004 dated.l 1 .08.2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District Judge,(FTC) at Nalgonda. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. KIRAN REDDY MALLARAPU, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Oecree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.30,500/- to Rs.75,100/- which shall car'ry interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum;

2. That the compensation amount shall be deposited by 'espondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit, petitioner be and hereby is ent tled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security;

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, (FTC) at Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies To HIGH COURT DATED: 0510312025 DECREE MACMA.No.1267 of 2010 PARTLY ALLOWED ,^ ,l a