The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SMT. P SATYA MANJULA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: JUOGMENT I l I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUzuT YARA M.A.C.M.A.l{o .1556 of2O13 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel fo the appellant and Sri P. Satya Manjula, learned standing counsel br respondent No.2/lnsurance Company and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appt i ant/claimant aggrieved by the award passed by the learned NI rtor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Addl. District Judge (Fasr 'f .ack Court)), Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.p.No.24B o 2OO0, dated

06.02.2006.

3. The claim petition was filed follou'ing the app,: lalt meeting u,ith an accident on 06.O7.1999 at 10.30am. C)n thal [ar., u,hen he was travelling in a car bearing No.ATU 3837 frorr Hyderabad towards Nizamabad, near Devi Thanda of Gannaran-r illage shivar of Dichpally Mandal, the driver dror.e the car in a r:rsh and negligent manner and dashed against RTC bus bezrrrr g No Ap-10- 267 22 which was coming in the opposite direction. I -ris accident resulted in fracture of left leg, fractures on right har d and right hand wrist and injuries to head and other parts ( i the body. As such, he filed claim petition seeking comp.nszrtion of Rs 2,50,O00/-. \ \ ..-. \ I 2

4. The Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the appellant through PWs 1 to 3 and the documents marked under Exs.Al to A4. Further, the Tribunal considered the oral evidence of RWl and Ex.Bl marked on beha'lf of respondent No'2/Insurance Company. Thereafter, awarded compensation of Rs'66'000/- with the said comPensation interest 7.5o/o per annum' Aggrieved by awarded, the present appeal is preferred' In grounds of appeal, it is urged that the appellant is 5. suffering with 75% of partial permanent disability' However' the disability certificate issued was not considered on the premise that there is a District Medical Board for issuing disability certificate' The Doctor who treated the appellant has been examined but his evidence is not considered The Tribunal did not consider the fact that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg lower 1/3'd and fracture of right radius lower 1/3' The Tribunal did not consider the income of the appellant at Rs'7'9321- per month as a Government employee and thereby resulted in erroneous calculation of loss of income Further meager comPensation 1S awa-rded on the premise that the injuries sustained by the appellant are simple in nature' On the basis of aforementioned Rs.2,5O,OO0/- be grounds, it is prayed that compensation of awarded with interest ftt; l2o/o per annum' 3 X-

6. Coming to the first ground of the percentage of <t sability' the appellant relied upon Ex'A33 disability certifrcate isst ed by PW2' As per evidence of PW2' a Orthopedic Surgeon' tht appellant's fractures are malunited to both bones right leg ar d there are restricted movements of the knee joint' Also, there s malunited ' ovements of fractureradiusrightresultinginrestrictedpainful right elbow The disability is assessed at 7 5o/o Accor ling to PW2' the appellant cannot walk without support and there i ; limptng' rav films are examined before issuing disability certifir ate PW2 was given suggestions about assessing the disabllrt / at higher and that the appellant sustained onlv sin 1 le in;urtes' deposed that the appellant was admitted it Jagadamba $,ith fracture of both bones right leg r ri'er I / 3 and fracture of right radius lower 1/3' PW3 describerl t he treatment given to the appellant' more particularly it is depj ;ed that there $ as delayed union of fractures and that the appe I 1nt under\t'ent surgerv on 16'12'7999 and removal of implants' B. Ex A33 di sability cerLificate is issued bv a t ompetent Civil Surgeon of District Headquarters Hospital' ll zamabad The evidence of PW3 who ffeated the appellant shorvs tl at the fractures are malunited or there is delayed union The fact L m of injuries is 7- Pw3 percentage HosPitals t t : I 1 4 conflrmedbyPW3aswellasPw2whoissuedthedisability certificate. The appellant was a Government employee and continued to be so even after the accident. As per Ex.A31 salary certiflcate dated 03.03.2003 issued by the employer, the appellant was earning Rs.7,9321- per month' Ex'A29 is the letter dated 06.09.200I issued by the employer showing that the appellant had availedExtraordinarSrlravefromOl.oS.lgggtolT.l2.|999. Though the appellant had taken Extra Ordinary I-eave' there is no need to grant loss of earnings as he will be paid saIary while being onEOL.Hence,thisCourtisnotinclinedtoconsidertheamountof Rs.21,0OO/- awarded by the learned Tribunal under the said head'

9. Admittedly, the appetlant suffered tvi'o grievous injuries' However, the learned Tribunal has granted Rs'20,OOO/- for injuries besidesRs.l5,ooo/-towardstreatmentexpenditure.Therefore,two grievous injuries carry with them compensatiot-l of Rs 25'0OO/- each i.e. total Rs.SO,OOO/- tolr'ards pain and suffering'

10. The learned Tribunal has granted meager amount of Rs.S,OOO/- towards medicines even though the aPPellant has produced medical bills under Ex Ag to A26 ' Therefore' the appellant would be entitled for pavment of Rs'63,O22l- towards medicdl bills under Exs.A9 to A26 j I 5 I l. Further, the learned Tribunal has granted z: L amount of Rs.S,OOO/- only towards extra nourishment and tr msportation. This Court is inctined to grant an amount of Rs.lO'O )O/- tovvards extra nourishment and Rs.5'OOO/- towards transporta -ion.

12. Coming to the aspect of disability, since the appt [1ant has not lost his 1ob, the disability must not have affected : is functional ability. The fracture of both bones 1/3'a right leg i rdicates mal union s,hich u ould lead to lifelong discomfort leadin 1 to limping. Said discomlort can be taken at lOo/o arrd the loss of source of income due to disability can be calculated taking r I e functional disabilitv at I O'11,.

13. The appcllant was aged 42 years as on the datt of accident. As per salan certificate under Ex.P31, the gross sal:L v along rn'ith Rs.BO/ tou'ards professional tax would be Rs.7,932, . To quantif1' \ t the compens:rtion towards loss of future earnings due tl clisabilitv, as per age ernd income of deceased, if 30 percent of le income is includecl as future prospects as per law laid dou'r, in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others the annual income rvould be Rs.1,23,739/- (Rs.7,932/-x 12 + 28,r;51 ). As per the aurhorirr. in Sarla Verma v. Delhi ftansport Corpt'r ation2, if the 2Ol7 (6) 170 (SC) '1zoos1 oscc r:r 6 aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier of '14', the loss of futu-re earnings of the appellant due to disability at l0% is Rs.1,73,234l- (Rs.1,23,739/- x l4x lOl100). In all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.3rO1,256l-.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allou,ed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.66,0O0/- to Rs.3,O1,256/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till ttre date of realization. However, the appellant shall pay the defrcit Court Fee on the enhanced compensation. Respondent Nos.l and 2 shall deposit the amount u'ithin a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy ot this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount u'ithout furnishing the security. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/.MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR I TTTRUE COPY" CTION OFFICER To, The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Nizambad' One CC to SRl. P RADHIVE REDDY' Advocate IOPUCI One CC tO SMT. P SATYA MANJULA, AdVOCAIE [OPUC] 1 2 ,l s 4. Two CD CoPies MKN/PSL I t i HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1556 of 2013 ( HES /^ ( o 5 ot[ zffi )F ) .s AT.-.: z * ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITI IOUT COSTS. I,

1314.21 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENW SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1556 oF m13 Between: (CT Vide Separate Sheet Attached) Tammareddy Parthasarathi R/O Subashnagar, Nizamabad, S/o Tammareddy Ramashastr! Govt Employee R:/o Banda Niamidipally Village, Mahabubnagar Dist Now R/o Subashnagar, Nizamabad ...CLAIMANT/APPELLANT AND

1. M/S Masood Enterprises, Rep. bv Masood Hussain Business -cum-Owner of Ambassador ATU 3837 R/o Piot No 19, Salarjung Colony, Toli Chowk' Hyderabad

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep. by its Branch manager Branch Office, Near Godown Road, Nizamabad .,.RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.248I2000, dated 06.02.2006, on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims Trrbunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge (FTC) Nizambad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusrng 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. P RAHIVE REDDY, Advocate br the Appellant and of the Respondent No. 2 Advocate SMT P SATYA MANJULA and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 r' I I I i This Court both Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is,1 lowed 2. That the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs. 6€ , )00/- to Rs 3,01 ,2561 which shall carry interest @7.5 Yo P.A. from the date c,l Petition till the date of realization-

3. However, that the appellant shall pay the deficit Cou 1 fee on the enhanced amou nt.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 shall deposit the compensz:ion amount within a perrod of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a Copy cl this Judgment.

5. On such deposit, the Appellants be and hereby entitle(l to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL T EPUTY REGISTRAR \ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, 1 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum, I Addrtronal Drstrict Judge (FTC) Nizambad. 2 Two CD Copies MKN/PSL & HIGH COURT DATED:2610612025 DECREE MACMA.No.1556 of 2013 ALLOWING THE M.A.C.M.A WITHOUT COSTS. J {a\