High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. ffi"ffi i;F-iim?sd[;.fl filxti#fl?:'#lliiriti'"'t":rsl jlt:'- i11114fli;ff E}[i*ii'**'H'f,:**,i"gHTTH::d"J"trffi ..'RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri S Surender Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No'2: Ms' A'Malathi Counsel for the Respondent No'1 : None appeared The Court delivered the following: Judgment I TTIE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M .a.c .M.4.No. 57 OF. 2 I This appeal is filed by the pedtioner_claimant aggrieved by For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to the Order and Decree dated 0g.04.2OI9 in M.V.O .p.No.22Z of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_Il Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short .the Tribunal,) granting a compensafion of Rs. 2,0O,OOO/_. 2. qs they were arrayecl before the Tribuna_I. 3. The case of the petitioner in brief before the Tribunal is t.l.at the petitioner was proceeding on his motor bike bearing No.Ap_2S_ H-5889 on 22.O1.2OO.5 from Saleem Farm towards Nizamabad along urith milk tin and while he was proceeding in front of Masjid at Sarangapoor Viilage, a jeep bearing No.Ap_OI_V_O515 came at a high speed from behind and dashed the motor cycle and that he fell down and the jeep ran over him, as a result of which he sustained fractures to skull, right frontal temporal He was immediately shifted to Government Head Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter was admitted in Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent treatment as inpatient from 22.O t.2OO5 ro 29.O1.20O5. bone etc., Quarters Yashoda ETD,J MACMA No 57-2021 ,.2 -Irr"rir,.t.t Company has filed counter denying all the allegations and further contended that respondent No.l who is the owner and driver of the jeep' was oot negtigent in his driving and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner himself and therefore' prayed to dismiss the Petition'

5. Based on ttre above pleadings' trial Court has framed the foilowing issues for trial:- "1. Whetler on 22'10' SarottgaPoor Village' neoliaent diuing o1 oit i as its diuer? 2. Whetler tle petitioner recEiued- injuries in ttnt occident? 3. Whether the petittoner. is entitted to compensation? if so' irt-i'rii,"' -'l 7'o^ which resPondent? 'x#r#iii;J!:::;v,{;{+ 4 To uhat relieJ ?"

6. Before the trial Court' the petitioner got examined himself as PWl and also got examined PW2 and got marked Exs'A1 to A9' On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced and Ex'Bl was marked. 7. Considering the evidence on record' the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs' 1, I3,OOO/ - to the petitioner together with proportionate costs and subsequent interest @ 7 'syo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization' Aggrieved by the said .erder, the present appeal is hted by the petitioner seeking enhancement of comPensation'

8. Heard Sri Surendt and Ms.A.Malathi, the ,:r Insurance company. 3 MACMA N".5?_:;?i Reddy' learned counsel for the appelant learned counsel for the respondent No.2-

9. The learned counsel for the appellalt l nas argued that the Tribunal ought to have a w"..r^,.r .,^ ::'-" I awarded Rs'2'oo'ooo/- as claimed by him, but the trial court granted a meagre compensation of Rs.r,r3,o00/- and th; rt the petitioner has in ,,as rncurred more than Rs.2,oo,oo0/_ to recover ,* .:*' the sard injuries' He further submitted rhat the ,;^---":l Loner used to earn Rs.I5,OOO/_ per month by selling milk arrd vegehbles and also doing agriculture, but the sarne was not considered by the Tribunal. He therefore, prayed to , enhance the compensation.

10. The learned counsel for submitted that there is no proof of medical bills filed petitioner and that the Tribunal has assessed the compe based on the evidence on record and therefore, prayed to confirm the order of the Tribunal. the contesting respondent has by the nsation

11. In view of the above rival contentions, the for determination in this Appeal are as follows:_ Whether tLe claimant is compertsation as prayed for ? I entitled for enhqncement of pornts that arise ) 3 Whether the Order ond. Decree pessed. bA th.e TibunrLl need ang interference ? To uthat retief ? l I I I i ETD,I MACMA No 57-2021 \ 4

12. a) on head and Point No.1 The case of the Petitioner is that he sustained grievous ral bone, ribs injuries i.e., fractures to skull' right frontal tempo and swelling over left parietal region and injunes other Parts of the bodY' To prove his case' he has examrned PW2- Dr. B. Ranga Rao who issued Ex'A3/Injuries Certifrcate' b) A perusal of Ex'A3-Injury Certifrcate shows that the petitioner has sustained one grievous head injury' The evidence of PW2-Doctor also reveals the said fact' The petitioner has frled bills He claims to have incurred under Ex'A9 to a tune of Rs'17 '1261-' Rs.1,SO,OOOi - towards medical expenses' but has not frled any proof. Ex.AS is the Discharge Summary of Yashoda Hospital which reveals that the petitioner was admitted ort 22 'Ol '2OO5 and was discharged on 28'01'2005 and during the said period' he was treated for head injury i'e'' bifrontal fracture ' Fracture of Cribriform Plate of Ethmoid' Fracture Lateral Wall of Left Orbit' and that the petitioner was treated CSF Rhinorrhoea the time of discharge, he was advised with conservatively. At medication and was advised to go for a review after one week' Ex.A6 is the Out Patient Card of Yashoda Hospital and Ex'A7 is the Prescription issued by the Yashoda Hospital' He has also hled the CT Scan reports under Ex'AS and X-Ray reports under Ex'A7/3' Therefore, the petitioner could place it on record that he has I ! i I i I I I I : J i I sustained grievous head injury isn referred by pW2 to higher centre, Yashoda Hospital and underwen 29 .O1 .2OOS as discussed supra. ,OarO "".rr-51?i the accident and that he was whereupon he was admitted into t treatment from 22.07 .2OOS to c) The petitioner is stated to have been into agriculture and also used to sell milk and vegetables and pleaded that he used to earn Rs.IS,0OO/_ per month. No proof can be expected from the petitioner to prove his sqrning5 in this regard. However, some allount of guess work on a reasonable hypothesis has to be made with regard to his earnings. d) In Ramo,chq.nd.rdtr pq vs. Manager, Rogal sund.q.ram Alliance Insurq.nce Compang Limitedt the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a Iabourer, Rs.a,500/_ per month can be safely taken as the income. But, in the present case, the petitioner is stated to be an agriculturist and also that he was seliing milk ald vegetables. The petitioner is shown to be 5O years age in Ex.A3, the same is considered a''d it is borne out by record that he was an abre bodied person prior to the accident. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, his income is taken as Rs.6,OOO/- per month. It is the common knowledge that without reasonable physical fitness, one Cannot attend to his/her normal work. In the light of the evidence ' (2011) 12 scc 236 EIO,J MACMA No.57-2021 + 6 1n regard to the injuries sustained bY the petitioner and the ..eatrnent received by him and also taking into consideration the time required for the injuries to heal' it is reasonable to accePt that he was out of work [or at-least about three months' Accordingly' a 1S awarded AS compensauon sum of Rs-18,OOO/- (6'000 x 3) towards loss of earnings' e) The petitioner sustained grievous head injury in the accident and was hospitalized for about seven days, which itself causes pain and suffering to the petitioner' The treatment underwent by him is alsoextractedsuprawhichisalsoprovedbyttreevidenceofPW2. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, and the treatment underwent by him' it is opined that RS.SO,OOO/- is to be awarded under the heads of pain and suffering. The petitioner has I With regard to the medical expenses' a set of medica-l bills of Yashoda Hospital is filed under Ex'A9 to a tune ol Rs'17'1261-' also filed few other bills to an amount of an amount of Rs-23,859/- is the amount Rs.6,733l-. Thus, towards medical expenses. It is his case that Rs.2o,(XD/- is spent towards transportation- It is evident from the record that the petitioner was shifted from Nizambad to Yashoda Hospital' Hyderabad and even after treatment he had to travel for follow up and review. Hence, an additional amount of Rs.2O'(XX)/- 1S ETD,] MACMA No.57_2021 Sranted towards transportation In addition to that the petitioner must have suslained 7 expenses towards extra Expenditure. Therefore attendant and Incidental an additional amount of Rs.2O,OOO/- is awarded towards the said expenses and thus an amount of Rs.B3,g59 is awarded under the head *hospital, medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment ald other incidental expenses." nourishment, d In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: l{ame of the heads Compensation undei the h;;A--*- _- tnjuries, shock, pain and suffering l j Aparded by this Court Rs sr. lNo 1 2 3 4 Compensa tion of loss of e arrungs ast three month future _sl earmngs due to pensation under the head of Loss of : disabiri Com hospitat, Medical Expenses transport, extra-nourishm ent and other incidental Total SCS s0,o0o/_ 18,000/ -IIil- i 83,859/- 1,51 ,8591- h) Therefore, tl're compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs. 1 ,51,g5 9 / _, whlle the Tribuna,l has awarded Rs.1,i3,OOO/_. Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly. I I ) ETD,J MACMA No.57-2O21 8 13 PO INT N o It is held that tJle order and decree passed by the Tri need to be modifred with regard to tJre quantum of compensatlon' / - from This Court has enhanced the compensation to 1 '51 '859 that of Rs.1,13,OOO/- i'e'' awarded by the Tribunal' t4. POINT No.3: In the result, M'A'C'M'A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the order dated 08'04'2019 in M'V'O'P'No'227 of 20 13 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional District Judge' Nizamabad' enhancing the compensationfromRs'1,13'000/-to1'51'859/-'andtheenhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 '5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization' However' the interest for tJle period of delay is forfeited' if any' The respondent No'2 is 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 arnount 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. SD/. N SRIHARI, DEPUTY REGISTRAR To, //TRUE COPYII /hr 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_ll Addl. District ^ {rdg9 at Nizamabad (With records) 2. One CC to SRt S SURENDER REDDy AdvoQate tOpUCl 7 ea;-etA&lb' L trsXAil*; N,- C;-i" sEc TION OFFICER HIGH COURT DATED: 2OtOgt2OzS q TT.TE 1 C) i) [ug ? 2 N6 * * -qEo JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.5Z of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA ( /-t v D 13441 H|GH cou Rr t?T I+=D8IAIi8F TELANGANA --'1??3YlH,1ffi]'iE'{"4'1-9"'VA*' THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTORAC CIDEN T ClvlL MIS GELLANE ous APPE AL NO :57OF20 21 Between: Y3"'J,'3t::#ffi ,?'31ffft .:1"#E'x*"?;A*"'';'8-ffi l'?''ij6#ift lll'"I8i ri,f-r?,O rt, N izamabad District' ...APPELLANT'PETITIONER AND 'ffi ",""##i3'tpHis:1fu .ifplHiieH?:"ff i.i:f ]:]:€:q"*sl j3:'{r##trilto:'- College, Bhainsa, Ac 28.01-2014) 'tJ'fi ttttitffi,a*l'*"gflT#q"J*{{ffi ...RESPONOENTS/RESPONDENTS ef ":,}{f, :!n#,iigii;:ex,gr^:r#ii:y'"ii"l:'+;Jbl"i^:ffi'#[il!fi lioiiiin]ibi.tti"t J'ag" at Nizamabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon.perusinq the grounds of appeal' oe"reelf il; i;;;;"c""t and the mate-rial papers in the MVoP the Judsment of Sri S Surender Reddy' Advocate for the and upon hearing tn" "gl;"G AoDellant and of Sri n i'i'i"i"ni'io"o*t" fo' the Respondent No 2 and None appeared forthe ResPondent No 1' "no This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is paily allowed: 2. That the compensi e ntr a n ceo iro lr-'i::l': i.:frrTi nir.ff i|vn it-: perannum rild"U?J:l:1ffi;l;T';ll.*iffiT interest @ 7 s% tri b u n a r be a n d h e re by

3. That the enhanced i

4. However, the intere .,iff already depositeo. fl+*''En*i*1,*il,t#,'**-i+,i: - ' "" uquvr I rcl rt afler deducting the amount ii ,"y '" fl #iit'i"f ''H: "#Tlff x,";lffl,H*i?"", :l-rk lfl {.,"0, " conRrmeo ilrilff'[J3:"1:*"" or the Lower court shat stands

6. That save as aforesai to withd ra w "d n,,,1 //TRUE copytt o.?,.j#'**3I*"* (..4_ SECTION OFFICER Ifl?""}iffi*il;lVlotor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-il Addr. District Two CD Copies ?k To, 1 2 ARZ HIGH COURT DATED: 2OlO3t2O2S / DECREE IIIACMA.N o.S7 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA It- ffi12)