The High Court · 2025

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this apperal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR tr,, .L_ n 1 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies Tribunal -cum- Principal District w -? JIF -::.' '-^' i-- -J -a ir - HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212025 / I :_:-. of' -f t. .$ .\ Ns$ / <J 4Io UJ i. // DECREE MACMA.No.53 of 2021 .L or' '-^,fffl PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA 1 o e{ 134,41 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA OEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLA NEOUS APPEAL NO: 53 OF 2021 Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No. 202 ot2015 dated. 15.04.2019 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- Principal District sessions Judge, Adilabad. Between: Gadipally Surya, S/o. Durgaiah, Age.25 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Budidagadda Basthi, 6ellanipalli, Presenlly R/o. Shanthi Nagar, Adilabad ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. Asif Farook Patel, C/o. T.M. Carrier, Age. Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry' Bearing no. MH.24lJ-6786, Ambajogi Road, Latur (MS).

2. Nationat Insurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Latur.

3. National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office Shivaii Chowk, Adilabad.

4. Shivaii Mahaian Gadale, S/o. Mahaan Gadale, Age 47 years' Occ: Lorry bearing No. iVlH-24-J-6786, R/o. Marwali Village, Tq. Nayagaov Kiregaov, Nanded District (MS). ,..RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: SRI P HARINATHA GUPTA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.53 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 15.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2O2 of 20 15 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Pr1. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short "the Tribunal") granting a compensation of Rs.1,99,29O /- against his claim of Rs.6,30,0O0/ .

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

19. i 1.2010 at about 7:30 p.m., the petitioner and his friend Shaik Shareek were travelling on a Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP- 1D-6849 from Mancherial to Bellampally, when they reached near Subhiksha water plant, Gadderyagadi Village one lorry bearing No.MH-24-J-6786 came in a rash and negligent manner from behind at high speed ald dashed to the motorcycle of the petitioner as a resulr of which they fell down on the ground and the petitioner sustained fracture of tibia, fracture of acetadulam, fracture of right femur shaft with lateral condylar ancl multiple injuries all over his bod1,, and that his friend Shaik Shareek died -;,'* ETD,J MACMA No.53-2021 2 on the spot. It is his case that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial. Thereafter, he was shifted to Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital, Karimnagar and admitted as an inpatient for a period of 90 days and that he had undergone three operations and that he incurred an amount of Rs.2, 1O,000/ - towards medica-l expenses.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 4 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal.

5. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 representing the Insurance Company have filed counter aflidavit denying the averments in the petition and contended that the accident has not occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and that, their company is not liable to pay arly compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- " 1. Wheth.er th.e accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on 19.11.2O10 at about 7:3O p.m., near SubltiksLn water plant, Gadderyagadi Village of Adilobad Distict due to rosh and negligent diuing bg th.e diuer of lorry beaing No.MH-24J-6786 belonging to first respondent or ushether there u-ns ang contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner ?

2. Whether the petitioner suffered injuies and disabilitg os alleged ?

3. Whether th\re uas ang insurance couerage for the driuer of lorry beairLg No. MH-24J-6786 and if so, does .;?*|:i': 3 ETD,J MACMA No.53 2021 the policg couer the ri.sk o.f petitioner ond if so, uas there ang breach of policg condition alleged by the respondent?

4. Whether th.e petition b bad for non-joinder of ou,ner and insurer of motorcgcle beaing No.AP 1D 6849?

5. Whether the petttioner is entitled to anA compensation, if so to uhat ertent and agai4st tuhom?

6. To what relieJ ?" 7 . Before the Tribunal, the petitioner got examined himself as PW 1 and also got examined a Medical Ofhcer as PW2 arld got marked Exs.A1 to A13. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,99,290/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization

9. Aggrieved by the said award, the petitioner has hled the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appeliant ard Sri P. Harinath, the learned counsel for the respondent No.3-lnsurance Company. 1 1. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and that the \ 4 ETD,I MACMA No.53 2021 petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident arrd that the petitioner has incurred huge medical expenses to a tune of Rs.2,1O,00O/- apart from other expenses, but the Tribunal has awarded a meagre compensation of Rs. 1,99,29O/-. He therefore, prayed to set aside the Award of the Tribunal and enhance the compensation, by allowing this Appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the Tribunal has rightly granted the compensation as per the evidence adduced by the petitioner and that there is no need to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal.

13. In view of the above rival contentions, tJle points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 Wlether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prdAed for ? Wlether the Order and Decree passed by the Tibunal need ong interference ?

3. To uhat relief ?

14. Point No.1: a) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries i.e., fracture of tibia, fracture of acetadulam, fracture of right femur shaft with lateral condylar and multiple injuries all over his body on 19.11.20iO. Ex.A2 is the injury certificate issued by the Medical Officer of Government Civil Hospital, Mancherial. A 5 ETD,J MACMA No.53 2021 perusal of Ex.A2 reveals that the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident, that he sustained fracture of right knee u.hich is grievous in nature and sprain in the right ankle and also multiple abrasions on both limbs. Exs.AS and A6 are Diagnostic Reports of the injured, while trx.A7 dated 08.12.2O10 is the Prescription of Sai Ram Muiti Speciaiity Hospital, wherein the doctor has observed that the injuries on the petitioner are 74 days old and that he sustained fracture on upper tibia and fracture of acetadulam, fracture of right femur shaft and that he has removed the sutures and has done the dressing, he also prescribed few medicines. Ex.A8 is ihe Discharge Summary of Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital disclosing that the petitioner was admitted on 20.11.201O and was discharged on 02.12.2O1O, while the surgery was performed on 24.11.2010. The nature of treatment unclerwent by the petitioner lvas that he was treated for poly trauma i.e., fracture of pelvis, fracture of upper tibia and fracture of middle third femur and anterior ligature of patella. It is further revealed that he was operated with ORIF and screw hxation and external fixation for tibia, IMIL nailing for left femur, ligament repair. He was advised for review aJter five days. Another discharge summary of Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital is at Ex.A9 which discloses that the petitioner was again admitted on O6.06.2011 and r.r,as <lischarged on 09.06.2011 and that he got treated for removal of external 6 ETO,J MACMA No.53 2021 -,.'l fxation. Ex.A10 reveals that the petitioner has again visited Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital for physiotherapy after 45 days for follow up. It further discloses that he was admitted for physiotherapy along with few medications ald was advised with active knee and ankle exercises tili future instructions. He also hled a bunch of medical bills under Ex.A11 b) The petitioner as PWl has reiterated his above pleaded case, and further he got examined PW2-Dr.K. Vamshidhar Reddy, the consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon of Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital, who deposed about the treatment given to the petitioner at their Hospital. Through his evidence Exs.A8 to A10 are proved. Nothing material was elicited during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. c) The Discharge Summaries under Exs.A8 to A10 disclose the nature of treatment underwent by him. Though Ex.A2 discloses one grievous injury and one simple injury, on the basis of the diagnostic reports under Ex.AS, he was found to have sustained multiple fractures and thus was treated with ORIF and screw fixalion and external hxation for tibia, IMIL nailing for left femur, ligament repair at Sai Ram Multi Speciality Hospital. It is further revealed through Exs.A8 to A1O that he underwent treatment for about a period of two months and that he sustained multiple ./ a..-r 7 ETO,J MACMA No 53_2021 injuries and was treated for the same. He has also hled a bunch of medical bills. d) Since, he has sustained multiple injuries and was hospitalized for about two months, shock, pain and suffering al the time of the accident, operation. discomfort a nd inconvenience during the period of treatment, bed rest can be visualized, taking into consideration day-to-day human experience. In the facts and circumstances of the case, a sum of Rs.SO,OOO/- is awarded as compensation under the head of injuries, shock, pain and suffering. e) As regards the claim in respect of hospital, medical and other expenses, the pleaded case of the petitioner and the evidence on record with regard to the injuries sustained, treatment received and expenses incurred is already extracted supra. The petitioner has stated that he has incurred expenses to a tune of Rs.2,1O,0OO/-, but the bunch of medical bills hled are to an extent ol Rs.l,49 ,29O I -. f) Since, he has suffered for about two months, he must have spent some amount towards the incidental expenses like; extra nourishment, attendant charges, transport charges etc. Therefore, he must have incurred an expenditure around Rs.2O,OOO/- towards the same. \ 8 EID) MACMA No.53 2021 g) Ex.A 12 is the Bonahde Certificate Issued by the Manjira Junior College, which discloses that he has completed Intermediate in the said college during the Academic year 2OO9-2Oll. Since, the petitioner was a student at the time of accident and during the period of treatment, nothing can be awarded towards Ioss of earnings. Further, it is elicited through Ex.A12 that there was no loss of academic year due to the accident.

15. In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: sI. , wo. 1 2 Name of the heads Pain and Suffe Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, tranq.p9r!, extra-nourishment : Total Awarded by this Court Rs. 50 000 t,69,ooo l- 2,1 9 00 h) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is caiculated as Rs.2,19,00O/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,99,29O/-. Thus, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation to Rs.2,19,OOO/-. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly. t6. PTOINT NO.2: In view of the linding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the ordr and decree of the Tribunal dated 15.O4.2O19 need 9 ETD,] MACMA No.53 2021 interference with regard to the quantum of compensation' This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,19,OOO/- from that of Rs. 1,99,29O I - i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

17. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly aliowed modifying the order dated 15.04.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2O2 of 2015 by the Chairman-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.|,99,29O/- to 2,19,000/- and the enhanced amount of compensation sha1l carry interest @ 7 .5o/o per annurri from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are 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 is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. A.SREENIVASA REDDY ASSI TANT REGISTRAR \ \I SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum- Sessions Judge, Adilabad. (lf any Lower Court record) , -- One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. P.HARINATH GUPTA, Advocate IOPUC] Two CD Co

2. J. 4. o Principal District ) t HIGH COURT DATED: 2010212025 ) e OF rE( 4/v,- .s .s\$i! ,(, ,,, JUDGMENT MACMA.No.53 ot 2021 ,) irotH + PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA 0\ A