High Court · 2025

Ilcard Mr.Kuldcr:p .Jadhav, lcarned counsel appcaring frrr the appellant claimant and Mr.A, Ramakrishna Reddy, lear-nrrd Standing Counscl for rcspondent No.2 Insurance Conrpanv. Pcruscd the record. 4 NNI{, nraclra 99 2020 -t. 7 The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal IS "Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of comPensation?"

8. POINT: To substanliate thc case of the appellant he himself cxamined as l).W. 1. I Ie also statcd that he was doing agricultural q,ork and \regctable busincss prior to the accident and carning an amount of Rs.20,O00 l- per month' Though the appcllant has not lilcd any document to show that he was earning an amounL ot Rs.20,000/ , hc filed copy of pattadar passbook, whicfr shows that he is having Ac 3-OO guntas of land. l-carncd counscl furthcr submitted that thc appellant has also examined P.W.2 Dr-R.Anjani Kumar, Orthopaedic Surgcon, who trcated him on 06.08.20 15 for open fracture right tibia and fibula and shaft femur fracturc sustained by him. Hc statcd that the said injuries are gricvous in nature and opcn reduction and internal fixation on tibia and fibula were done on 08.O8.2015. He further stated that second operation was conductcd on 14.O8.2015 with nailing femur' IIe further statcd Lhat the appcllant was discharged from the hospital on 17 .Oa.2Ol5 with an advise for follow up I L I _. - !rr.,EIrr:i*t!t*;=EEZ 'I ,/ ,. i:a 5 N i\ li..r rrrrcnra 99 lrll0 I I I I I I i I i i I i I I I I I i l treatment. 'lhc appellant claimant has takcn trcatmcnt for a period of eight (B) months from the date ol accident anct hence , sought cnhancement ol the compensatlorl.

9. C,n the orhcr hand, learncd Standing Counsel for Insurance ()ompat'ry contcncjed that thc 'l.ribunal after considerine the cntirc cvidcnce on record, rrghtlv awarded compensa.tio n and lhere are no grouncls to ir.r tcrlcrc with the impugncd ar,'ard and hencc, hc pra-r,s to dismiss the appeal. 1O. T-rc appcllzrnt hers claimed an amount of Rs.22,oo,cr00/ tor.vards loss of earnings lrom thc date of accident. Hc also sl_atcd lhat he is carnirrg an amount of Rs.20,O00,/ pcr month by doing agriculLural w,ork and also vegetable bu;incss. Though thc appcllant has not litecl any document to shoq,that. hc is carning thc said arnount, he filed copy of pal.[a,lar passbook u,hich u,as issucd in his namc that he is having Ac.3 0O gunLas of 1and. But, r hc Tribunal has taken thc r:arnings of the pctitroncr at Rs.6,O0O/ per month havtng not believed the version of p.W.l. Considering the said income and r:onsidering the injurics sustaincd by him arld on the gt'ound that hc must havc Lakcn Lr,i o months bed I 6 NNR,J rao ra 99 2020 rest and accordingly awardcd an amount of Rs' 12 'OOO I towards loss of earnings.

11. l-carned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal u'itlrout considcring thc nature of lnjuries sustaincd b1' thc appcllant, has taken only two (2) months as rest pcriod and asscsscd loss ol earnings of the appellant at Rs.12,000/ Ibr two months (Rs 6,000/- per month) which is meagre . Considcring rhe lacts and circumstances of thc casc and takir-rg inlo consideration thc evidcncc ol P'W 2' the Tribunal oughL to have taken thc period of treatment as eight months lor the inj uries sustained by the appellant in the accidcnt. In all probabilitics, considcring the nature of injurir:s sustaincd by him, obviously' thc appellant u'ould have stayccl at homc at lcast for a period of six months withoutan'vincomc.AssuchthisCourtisoftheopinionthat [he compensation undcr thc hcad of loss of earnings can be taken for a pcriod of six months and accordingiy' the appcllant would be cntitled for a sum ot Rs'24'000/ towards loss of carnings L2. Admittcdly, the appellant has sustained two grievous injuries. In support of his contention hc aiso r.t$;"8!-try-Fr 7 |'r.nra q9 2010 examined P.W .2 , the doctor u,ho l_reated h:m. But, learncd Tribunal har; au,arde d an amounL of Rs.30,OOO/. under the head oI peLin and sulfcring uriLhout awarding amounl individually for cach injur_r. It appears that the amounI an,ardcd by rhe Tribuna[ undcr thc hcad of pain anci sufferance is on meagre sidc and it. necds to bc cnhanced. Accordinglv, the appellant rn,ould bc cntitlcd to an amollnt of Rs.30,O0O,r under the heacl of pain :rnd sullcring in adclition to the amounl. awarded b5r the Tribunal in all ar Lolal sum of Rs.60,0OOi rrndcr thc hcad ol pain and suffcr-inq.

13. Coming Lo transport chargcs and cxtra nourishment. thc contcntion of appcllant is that hc incurred an amount ol Rs.4,O0,0OO/ ln support of his conLcnLion, hc filed Ex.A.l3 Lransportation bills (7 Nos.) for an amounL of Rs.35,0O0/ But, learncd Standing Cor-rnscl lor the Insurance (lompany has contcndcd that thc saicr bills arc not certified, approvcd or author, who issucd the said bills. Therclorc, thc Tribunal ar.r,arded all ilmounl of Rs.15,0OO/- tou,ards transportation charges and Fls.S,O00/ towards cxtra nourishmcnL. cxaminccl b_v 14' (ldhsidering the nature of thc accidcnt occurred : l :ri l: 8 NNR,J and the prolongcd treatment obtained by the appellant obviously thc appellant would have engaged an Ambulance initially for shlfting him from onc hospital to another and for subsequent follorv up treatment hc r'vouid havc engaged a Car /any vehiclc. 'lhough thc saicl biils have not been proved by leading any cvidcnce, but considering the ground realities' this Court is ol thc opinion that the amount granted by the Tribunal tou'ards LransporLaLion charges and extra nourishmcnt ncccls for intcrfcrcnce and accordingly the appellant wo uld bc entitlcd an additional amount of Rs.1O,O00/- tor,r'ards transportation charges' which would be appropriatc ancl rcasonablc' As far as medical bills are concerncd, thc appcllant filed Exs'A'5 and A 6' for q'hich the Tribunal has granlcd an amount of Rs 3'859/- which needs no interlercncc b1' this Court'

15. 'lhough thc contention of thc appellant is that he sustained 10070 permancnt disability' he has not adduced any oral or documcntary cvidence before thc Tribunal that he sustained disability. In thc abscnce of any evidence' the appellant is not entitied to clarm the samc' ,--. ,:JE':E s!*r;!E. .?r ,/ /t 9 NNR. ] frr.nra 99 2010

16. A the appellant has no grievartce on oLher amounts a."r,ardcd by the Tribunal, I hold that Lhc appellant n.ould be er-rtitlcd for lollowing additional amounLS in addition to the amoulrts which are alrcadv arvardcd br thc lcarned Tribunal. Sl.No. Dcscription I 2 3l 4. 5 I I f)^ i:ret.d "g1!er1"g Trirn sportation Ch ?!tc S Lo ss carniqgs ExtrzL nourishment Mc:dical Bills Total Amount award by the Tribunal Rs. Additional Amount awarded by this Court Rs. I I 1 ,II I 30,000 15,000 2,0{o q,oqq 3,859 j os,ase-oo 30,o00 l o,o00 21 ,O00 64,OOO-OO

17. In thc rcsult,' thc appcal is partlv a]lt>r,r'cd ari'arding total compt:nsat,ion of Rs. 1,29,859/- (Rupccs onc lakh t\rrcnt]' nrnc Lhous;arrd cight hundred and lilt1, r- nc onlr,) 1o thc appcllant v,,jth inlercst (A 7 .5"/n pcr annum. Thc rcspor-rclents are directed Lo dcposit the enhanccd compcnsiition amounl with interest @ 7.5% per annum (cxcluding Lhc amounl already paid) u'ithin a period of t',vo months frorn thc datc o[ receipt of a copy of this order. Therc shall bc r-ro ordcr as Lo ---z I ! , i t I I t I I t i , i : IO NN nracnra 99 2U20 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal .1 shal1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SdIMOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G- SECTION OFFIGER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tricunal (Prl District Judge) at Nizamabad) ii"?'dL:. sn' KULDEEP JADHAV, Advocate toPugl- 5,# & iI s-ni. n. nnrtanKRlsHNA REDDY Advocate loPUCl Two CD CoPies 2 3 4 CHS w HIGH COURT DATED i 0710312025 JUDGMENT r.f, MACMA. No.99 of 2020 -1 s i,,r [T 2m :,-t-:r',,-i', PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 'l\ ."('y G 'i{P IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLA NEOUS APPE AL NO : 99 0F 2020 Between: Katta Balaiah, S/o. Samelu, age 33 years, Occ Agriculture cum vegetable business' iir,jlh"rrnlir.lpiriv, r.r"*,"'.ioi"g at'u t'lo 6-15-158, Dubba' Nizamabad' ...ClaimanUAPPellant AND

1. V. Dhanpal Reddy, S/o Anji Reddy' aged lvlajor' Occ Business,cum o*n", oi Car bearing ruo fS-e-EC-2a29' R/o H No'2-35' Kondapur (V),Ghatkesar (I/),Ranga Reddy District z iiJvar sundaram' miiaice tnsurance company Ltd., Rep by its, Branch - tvt"nrg"r, erancn Offile, Jewel Pawani Towers' Sth floor' 6-3-1 109/1- A- Block, Raj anr*n hoad,somaiiguda' Hy-derabad ( Policy No' r,/opaas+g'6, valid from 21.O7 .20151o 2 07 2016) ..'ResPondenUResPondents Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of lvlotor Vehicles Act' 1988 against the Order and decree in tV V.O.P. No 690 of 2015 dt 04 10'2019 on the file of the courtofthechairman,MotorAccidentclaimsTribunal,(VlllAdditionalDistrict Judge) at Nizamabad. 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 MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRI KULDEEP JADHAV' Advocate for the Appellants and SRl. A. RAIvIAKRISHNA REDDY' Advocate for the Respondents ,.. ""' .y This Court both Order and Decree as follows 1 2 3 4 That th,r l,4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat be and hereby is 5i,J 'r,1]f i;t,lr*ft',l3n J."i"r "o'punluii"o"n #"d.-" ',,r_n,uue/- (Rupees H und red' no ririv-rvin e b;i;;:; wirh in rerest d13?r: f::^t [.^l?l:,,1? ", j ;l,,X,"Jff ,:;::*i to d epos ir rhe en ha rced com pensa rion A"r,l|.^?"ted (Excludins the amounl atready paid) within a purioJ oii*Yr:,;li? '.' ..._ ,.._,lths form the date of rece.pt ot r.opY,oiiniJ order. ],?:f#:":;"11r*:aid, the decree of the tribunar shail stands confirmed in That there be no order as to costs in this appeal /irRUE copy// Bfl;|.fli$"lJ?Hit .u"r,offior.,".* Motor Accidents Claims Tricunat (prl District Judge) at To 1 2 The Chairmzrn, Nizamabad) Two CD Crrpi:s CHS Ye' HIGH COURT DATED :0710312025 DECREE MACMA. No.99 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ,{eA \{tov )k"