The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Appellant: SRI. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent No.6: SRI A V K S PRASAD The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE M.G. PRTYADARSINI M.A.C. M.A. No.3228 of 2016 JUDGMENT: This Appeal is hled by the Petitioner/claimant/injured aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 04 '1O '2016 (hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned judgment) passed in O.P.No.6O of 2016 (Old O.P.No.2 64 /2}l5l on the {ile of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - III Additional District Judge, Asifabad to enhance the compensation arnount'

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties are referred to as per their array before the Tribunal The claimant hled a petition under Section 166 of the Motor 3. Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs'4,OO,0OO/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on O1.11.2014 aL 10.00 PM near Power Plant at Jaipur Village' The brief averments of claim petition are as under: a) On 01.11.2O14 while the claimant/petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 01 S 6351 as pillion rider along with his friend Anishetti Sai Krishna (rider) from Chennur to Huzurabad village, near Power plant at Jaipur Village, a Tractor and Trolley bearing registration Nos.AP 01 F 7589 and AP 01 Y lSAo u.l.r* driven by Responclent No. 1 in rash and negligent \" 2 MGP, J Mr cma 3228 2016 manner wirl, high speed, applied sudden breaks, lrarked the tractor and trolley without giving any indications lighls. Due to darkness, the motorcycle of the petitioner dashed I rehind the tractor and trrtiler, as a result, the petitioner sustaine d multiple injuries all ov,:r the body ald his friend died on the spot. b) The Dol itioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial lbr first aid and thereafter he was shifted to Sunshine hospital, Karinrnagar, wherein he was treated as inpar_ient from 02.11 .2O 14 eLn cl surgery was conducted on 03. 1 t .20 1 4 c) The petitioner spent Rs. 1,so,oo0/- towards treatrnent and medical expen:jes. Due to the fractures and injuries, thc petitioner suffered pain rrnd again and still feeling acute pain. D ue to the injuries, the petitioner could not attend his work and thur;, claimed Rs.4,00,OOO/ ;1s compensation from respondcnt Nos. 1 to 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the driver, owner and insurer of tractor and trolley. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 being the parents ol. .Anishetti Sai Krishna i.r:.. rider of motorcycle were brought on recorC as LRs of deceased .Anishetti Sai Krishna. Respondent No.6 is th,: insurer of motorcycle on which the petitioner/claimant alleged to have been traveling on the date of accident. I n 3 MGP, J Macrr'a 3228 2076

4. In reply to the petition averments, the respondent Nos' 1 and 2 remained exparte and whereas the respondent No'3 filed counter denying the petition averments including the manner of accident, age, avocation, loss of income' It is further contended that the respondent No.1 has no valid driving license and that claim of the petitioner is excessive and thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition' The counter of respondent No.6 is also in similar lines to that of the counter filed by respondent No.3.

5. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 frled common counter pleading that they are not necessary parties to the petition and that deceased' who was the rider of the motorcycle, was not responsible for the accident and sought for dismissal of the petition against them' 6 Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 1) Whether the accident took place as alleged by the petitioner on O1.11.2O14 at about 22OO hours at near 'Power Plant, Jaipur Village, due to rash and negligent driving by the diiver of the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos.AF Oi F - 7539 and AP 01 Y 4680 or whether there was any contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner? 2) Whether the petitioner suffered injuries and disability as alleged? I 4 MGP, J l,lacr n 3228 2016 3) Wh,:ther there was any insurance coverage fcr the Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos. AP O1 F - 7589 and Ap 01 Y 468O and if so, does the policy cover the risk of the petitioner and if so, was there any breach of policy conditiorr alleged by the respondent No.3? 4) V/ll:ther the petitioner is entitled to any compensa tion, if so, what extent and against whoml , 5) To what relieP

7. Beforc lhr' learned Tribunal, the petitioner cxamineC himself as PWl aparr from exhibiting Exs.Al to A10 on his bel-ralf. On behalf of rescondcnts, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Exs.B1 to 83 were marked.

8. Conside rrrrg the rival contentions, the learnecl Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by awarding compensaticn of Rs. l,7O,O0Ol- hxir41 Lhe liability on the respondent Nos.1 ro 3 jointly and severall)r and thc claim against respondent Nos.4 .o 6 was dismissed. ,A.r;grieved by the quantum of compensalion, the petitioner/ injtrrcd preferred the present Appeal to enhirnce the compensation.

9. Hearcl firi S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ claim ant and Sri AVKS prasad, learnecl I.itanding Counsel for the respondent No.3/Insurance Company and perused the material ar.ailable on record inciuding the grounds of A-rpeal. \ / 5 MGP, J Macma 3228-2016 lo.ItistobeseenthattherespondentNo.3/Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment with regard to the liability fixed by the learned Tribunal' It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal by relying on Exs.Al (FIR), A2 (injury certificate) and A3 (MVI Report) came to conclusion that the accident occurred drle to rash ald negligent driving of the crime vehicle, which belongs to respondent No'1 and insured with respondent No'2' Hence' there is no dispute with regard to issue No.I, which was rightly answered by the learned Tribunal in favour of the petitioner' 1 1. The first and lbremost contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as on the date of the accident he was hale and heaithy and aged about 21 years and earning Rs 8'OOO/- per month as a private employee but the learned Tribunal without marrner took his earnings as considering the evidence in proper Rs.4,OO0/ - Per month'

12. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any documentary evidence iike salary certihcate or pay slip to substantiate that he was earning Rs'8,OOO/- per month' The petitioner did not even mentionastowhatwashisdesignationandthenameofthe private ofhce in which he was working' However' as per the \ Lr/ I ! I 6 MGP, J I lacma 3228 2016 principle iraic down of the Honourable Supreme Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Biharr, when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated by considering the age, av,loittion and year of accident. Thus, the mon thly income of the petitrr)ner can be assessed @ Rs.a,500/ -. Hence, the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.9,00O/_ towards loss of earnings.

13. The oth,:r contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due t() the grievous injuries, he could not atte nd his normal duties as e ar ier ancl by considering the same the C ourt below ought to ha.vr, granted more compensation.

14. Admittr:rily, the petitioner has not examined z ny of the doctors, whc have provided treatment to him. The pet tioner has relied upon IIx.A2. It is not the case of the petition:r that he sustained any disability. The learned Tribunal while answering Issue No.2 in the impugned judgment observed at tage No.5 paragraph Irlo.lO that the petitioner suffered four simp,ls injuries and rupturc ro spleen. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,OO0/ tcwards pain and sufferance but not avr,,trded any amount to\r.i -ds injuries sustained by the petitioner. Thus, the I (2O0r) 8 SCC] 1e7 l MGP, J Macma-3228 2016 petitioner is entitled for Rs'20,0o0/- i'e'' Rs'5'0oo/- to each of the four simple injuries. Further, this Court is of the opinion that rupture to spleen is a danger and life threatening injury that can cause infection in the stomach' Hence' the petitioner is awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the injury towards rupture to spleen'

15. Further, the petitioner sustained grievor.rs and slmple injuries. In such circumstances' the petitioner requires nutritious food and vitamin supplements to recover quickly from the iniuries' However, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount is awarded towards extra nourishment' Hence' the petitroner Rs.5,OOO/- towards extra nourishment' :

16. Thus, in all, the appetlant/claimant No'l is entitled for the compensation under various heads' as follows: Sl.No. Name of the head Fain and sufferance Medical exPenses Rup Sot p e1 ne (g.i 1Suevo nJ 4 simple injuries (Rs. 5,00O/- x 4) Loss of earnings TransPortation (Rs. 4,soo 1- "21 itendant charges &a I 2 \) 4 5 6 ) ComPensatlon awarded to the claimant (Rs.) 25,OOO l- t,27,OOO /- 2s,ooo l- 2O,OOOl- 9,oool- 1O,00o/- I f 7 ]lxtra nourishment 8 MGP, J tr'acma 3228 2016 s,ooo/- Total 2,21,OOo /-

77. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal ou;1ht to have awarded inte rest @ 7 .5% per annum instead of 9o/o per ,\nnum. By considerinpl rhe principle laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others2, this Court is inclined to rr rluce the rate of interest granted by the Tnbunal from 9o/o pet annunl to 7 .Soh per annum.

18. In vieu of the above discussion, this Court feels it just and proper to rnoCily the award and decree passed by the learned Tribunal to tiLt: extent of above observations.

19. In the r-rrsult, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensatior amount from Rs.1,7O,O00/_ to Rs.2,21,O00/_, which shall carry iniorest @, 7.So/o per annum from the clate of ltetition tili the date of rr alization. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are rlirected to deposit the c,lmpensation amount within a period of (rne month from the <latc of receipt of a copy of this juclgment. On such deposit, the pr:titioner/ injured is entitled to withdrau, the same 2 2013 ACt t4O3 - 2ol3 (.r) ALT 35 9 MGP, J I\llacflta 3228 2016 without furnishing any securit5z. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if ar,y, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To .ludoe. Asifabad. (With Records if any)

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional District z one"cb to sRl S'SURENDER REDDY, Advocate IoPUC] S. On" CC to SRl. A V K S PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] ;. o;; CC io Snr. HARINATH REDDY SoMA, Advocate [oPUc] 5. Two CD CoPies 6- 'S PR fr- HIGH COURT DATED: 2310112025 JUDGMENT ST4 'a MACMA.N o.3228 of 2016 (' [g \PR zffi , ,.1li o (- ?. 7. li i] .;. /1 ., ./ '.7 :.'' ! ; , I , i I I I I I I I i : I l I ! PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOLIT COSTS +"d'l* \6r- 6rr [ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO :3228 OF 2016 Between: Nevuri Shiva @ Shiva Krishna, S/o. Shankar' Age 22 years, occ: Private il-p6y";; nlo]ff.f.fo. 1-84, Laxmi Devar Wada, Chennur Village and Mandal, Adilabad District. r:.r,if AND ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

1. P Prashanth S/o.Narayana, Age 22 years, occ_Driver of Tractor and Trolley, R/o. Bheemaram Villale, R/M.-Jaipur' Adilabad District'

2. Gouravelli Devendar Rao, S/o. Bapu Rao, Age Major, Oc9 Ow1e1 of. C-rime Vehicle Tractor and Trolley, R/o. H.No. ,18-627, near lB, Mancherial Vlllage and Mandal, Adilabad District.

3. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd.' Represented by its blanc.h manager, Branch Office, 3'o floor,.Kyass Towers, Dr. Ambedkar Road' uoun Chowiastha, Karimnagar. 505 001. ^

4. Anishetti sai Krishna, s/o. Raja srinivas, owner-cum-rider of motor cycle ioiJai p"i LR's Anishetti Raid srinivas, s/o. Not given, Age Major, R/o' H.No.6-38, Chennur, Adilabad District.

5. Anishefti Laxmi, Wo. Raja Srinivas, Age: Major, Occ: Household, Rl/o' H.No.6-38, Chennur, Adilabad District.

6. United lndian lnsurance company Ltd., Represented by its Branch-Manager, Branch Office, D.No. 6-7311 , Balaji Complex, Gangareddy Road, Manchenal' Adilabad District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AppeaI filed under Section 173 of Moto( and decree, made in O.P. No. 60 of 2016', the Judgment Hel'$qt A?t6rasainst dated 04.10.2016 on the file of the "w1f i chairman, lvlotor Accident Asifabad. Claims Tribunal-cum- lll Additional l)istrict Judge, This appeal conring on for hearing and upon perusing the gro:nds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVop and upon hearing the arguments of sRI. s SURENDER REDDY. Advocate for the appellant and of sRl HARINATH REDDY SotnlA, counsel for the Respondent No.3 and of Sri A V K S PRASAD, Counsel for the Respondent No.6. I l This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the lVlACIr/A be and hereby is ailowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.2,2.1 ,000/_ (Rupees two Lakhs Twenty one thousand only) which shall carry interest @ 7.So/o pet annum from the date of petition till the date of realization:

2. That the respondent Nos.'l to 3 be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the dzrte of receipt of a copy of this J uCgment;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner/rnjured be and hereby, is entifled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security; and 4. That there shall be no order as to costs of this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ ,SECTION OFFICER To 1 Tt q chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- Iil Additionar District Judge, Asifabad Two CD Copies PR Y^{ HIGH COURT DATED: 2310112025 DECREE MACMA.N o.3228 of 2016 ):: -i ! I c () :.-< Rr ( o 09 nps ZIZS I I I * --,,.o)y' PARTLY ALLOWTNG THE APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS t\..JQ\VJ t w._- C-t'W