The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is frled by the injured-petitioner aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 03.09.202O passed in M.V.O.p.No.18l5 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXM Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal") granting a compensation of Rs.8,90,000/-.

2. Por convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief averments of the petitioner before the trial Court were that on 09.04.2015, the petitioner rlras proceeding on his birycle from Barampet towards Palnadu road, Narsaraopet through bye-pass road ald at about 12:40 hours, when he reached near Ganesh Temple and while he was crossing the road, in the mean time, one lorry bearing No.AP-21-W-O479 proceeding from Narsaraopet towards Sattenapally came in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner fell down from the bicycle and sustained fracture on his left leg and that he was immediately shifted to M/s.Amulya Nursing Home. Narsaraopet, he has undergone treatment for a 2 ETD,] MACMA No.127 2021 \ period of 40 days in the said hospital arrd from there, he was shifted to Manipai Hospital, Vijayawada for better treatment.

4. It is his further case that he has undergone five surgeries and has spent more than Rs.6,18,000/- towards inpatient bill and more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical bills and that he has sustained 67% disability. It is his case that he was aged 47 years as on the date of accident and was working as a Supplier in M/s.Siva Priya Bar and Restaurant and was earning an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month and that he engaged an attendant by paying Rs.5,OOO/- per month and that he lost his future prospects and earnings and therefore, has prayed to grant a compensation of Rs.20,0O,OOO/- together with interest @ l2o/o from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization.

5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex-parte.

6. The Respondent No.3 i.e., Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations. It is further contended by respondent No.3 that the driver was not having valid driving license at the time of alleged accident and that there was violation of the provisions of M.V Act. '1 l ETD,J MACMA No.127 2021 7 . Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- . " 1. Whether the injuries sustained. by the petitbner y. Nageshtuar Rao S/o Koteswar Rao, in motor accid.ent ocanrred on O9.O4.2O|S due to the rash and negtigent driuing of thz diuer of the crime uehicle Lorry i.iring No.AP-21-W-0429 ? 2. .Whether the petitioner is entitled. to compensation if so, how much and from uLam? 3- To wLuzt relief ?"

8. Before the tria.l Court, the petitioner got examined himself as PWl and examined pWs 2 to 6 and got marked Exs.Al to A16. On behalf of tJre respondent No.3, Ex-B l-lnsurance policy was maiked with consent and there was no oral evidence.

9. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the trial Court has granted a compensation of Rs.g,9O,00O/_ with proportionate costs and interest @ 7 .So/o per Ernnum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

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

11. Heard Sri G. Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P. Harinath, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3-lnsurance Company. ITD,J MACMA No.127 2021

12. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and that the petitioner has sustained 67% of disability and was earning Rs. 11,OOO/- per month prior to the accident, but the Tribunal has granted Rs.25,0OO/- towards loss of earnings. He further submitted that the Nowkarnama filed under Ex.A15 and the Salary Certificate hled under Ex.A14 are not considered by ttre Tribunal in assessing the income of the deceased. He further submitted that even the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner were proved through the evidence of the Doctor and t]le Chief Medical bflice., but the s€une was not considered by the Tribunal. He therefore, prayed to set aside the Award of the Tribunal and enhance the compensation, by ailowing this Appeal.

13. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has argued that the compensation in case of disability was rightly calculated by the Tribunal and that there is no clinching evidence adduced by the petitioner to prove that he worked as a cashier. He further submitted that the Tribunal was fair enough in not considering the medical bills pertaining to the period after discharge from the hospital, therefore prayed to uphold the order and decree passed by the Tribunal. -- ,/ 17 5 ETD,J MACMA No.127 2021

14. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:- I 2 Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as proged for ? Whether tLrc Order and Decree passed bg the Tibunal need any interferene ?

3. To tthat relief ?

15. Point I{o.1: a) The case of the petitioner is that he sustained grievous injuries i.e., the fracture of his leg and that he was hospitalized and suffered a lot for more than three months. A perusal of Ex.A4/the Wound Certilicate issued by Amulya Nursing Home, Narsaraopet reveais that he sustained fracture of left tibia which is a grievous injury. ExA5 is the discharge summary issued by Amulya Nursing Home which discloses that he was admitted on

09.04.2015 and was discharged on 17.04.2015 and that he was treated for Supra condoyle fracture in left tibia and surgery plating was done. He filed bills under Ex.A6 issued by Amulya Narsing Home disclosing ttre total amount of Rs.61,781/-. Ex.AlO is the discharge summary of Manipal Hospital which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 21.05.2015 with a complaint of wound infection and was discharged on 08.07.2015. It is further disclosed from the said exhibit that he was treated with; Debridement of necrotic soft tissue and external hxation for ( \ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.127 2021 fracture right lower limb done under SA on 22.OS.2OLS. Debridement of necrotic quadrisepsis tendon patella and tibialis tendon done under SA on O2.06.2O15 and further he was advised certain medication after discharge and was supposed to come ior review. Ex.Ai 1 is the bill to a tune of Rs.5,78,645/- issued by Manipal Hospital. b) To prove these bills and the medical treatment, the petitioner has examined PWs3, 4 and 5. PWS is the Doctor who rrrns Amulya Nursing Home, he deposed that their hospital has issued Exs.AS and A6 i.e., Discharge Summary and the Hospital Bill. It is also proved through the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that the petitioner underwent treatment at Manipal Hospital and that their hospital has issued Exs.A 10 and A I I i.e., Discharge Summar5r and the Medical Bill. Therefore, the evidence towards medical bills under Ex.A6 and A1 1 are held to be proved. c) It is further pleaded by the petitioner that he also underwent treatment in M/s Susmitha Ortho Trauma Care Centre and he has filed Exs.A7 to 49. Ex.A7 is the Discharge Summaqr issued by the Susmitha Trauma Centre which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 09.07.2O15 and discharged on 1O.OT.2OlS, but the bottom most line in Ex.A7 shows that implant removal-external fixation was done on 12.O8.2O15. Further, Exs.A8 and A9 are the )r 7 ETD,J MACMA No-127 2021 bills, dated 7O.O7.2015 supposed to have been issued by Susmitha Trauma Centre to a tune of Rs'24,342 l- and Rs'21'OOO/- respectively. Moreover, when the petitioner was inpatient only for two days i.e., O9.O7 -2O 15 and 1O'O7'2O15, how the surgery was conducted on 12.O8.2O15 remains to be an un-answered question ald it creates a suspicion over the documents filed under Exs'A7 to A9. Therefore, the said bills are not taken into consideration' d) The petitioner has stated to have been working in M/s'Shiva Priya Bar and Restaurant as a cashier' The documents filed by him are under Exs.A14 and 15. He has also examined PW7- Proprietor of Shiva Priya Restaurant ald Bar and his evidence reveals that the petitioner worked under them since 2004 and was paid a salary of Rs.11,OOO/- per month and that he has issued Ex.A14. He further stated that ever since the petitioner met with the accident, he has not attended to duties, and also that Ex'A15 shows the emplo5,T nent of the petitioner since 17 'Og '2OlL ' A perusal of Bx.e 1 s-t{owkarnama dated 17 'O9 '2O 1 1 reveals that it is issued by the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise Department,Narsaraopet,andthatthepetitioneristheauthorised agent/ servant of Shivapriya Bar. Ex.A14 is the Salary Certificate issued by PW7 disclosing that he used to earn Rs'11,O0O/- per month and it is issued on 29.O5.2017 and that the petitioner used \ 8 ETD,J MACMA No.127 2021 to work in the said Bar since 2OO4 for a monthly salary of Rs.l1,OO0/-. The accident occurred in 2O15. Ex.A15 is issued in the year 2011, while Ex.A14 portrays that. the petitioner used to work since 2OO4. It is not known whether the petitioner was an authorised agent since 2OO4 and continued to work as such till

2015. Through the said exhibits, the petitioner tried to place evidence on record that he used to work in Shivapriya Bar and earn Rs. 1 I,OOO I - per month as on the date of accident. The Exs.Al4 and A15 do not win much conhdence of this Court. But it is borne out by record that petitioner was an able bodied person prior to the accident and was aged 48 years. Therefore, this Court holds that Rs.7,OOO/- per month can be awarded on a reasonable hypothesis. It is the common knowiedge that without a reasonable physical fitness, one cannot attend to his/her normal work. In the light of the evidence in regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment 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 for at-least about six months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.42,O00/- (7,OO0 x 6) is awarded as compensation towards ioss of earnings. e) The petitioner underwent traumatic accident and sustained a fracture of left tibia. He was hospita-lized for about three months, / t( 9 ETO,J MACMA No.127 2021 which itself causes much pain and suffering to the petitioner- Initially the petitioner was admitted in Amulya Nursing Home for eight days i.e., from O9.O4.2O15 to 17.O4.2O15, but he was again admitted into Manipal Hospital on 21.O5.2O15 with a complaint of wbund infection, wherein he underwent treatment for about two months i.e., O8.07.2O15. He was suggested to go for review after discharge as it is disclosed by the discharge summar5z under Ex.A1O. Therefore, considering the nature of injury sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him, it is opined that an amount of Rs.1,(X),(XX)/- is to be awarded under the heads of pain and suffering. f) The loss of future earnings has to be awarded to the petitioner in view of the disabilit5r sustained by him. The disability as assessed by the Medical Board is 670/o. It is proved by the evidence of PW2. A perusal of Ex.Al3/the disability certilicate reveals that the disability sustained by ttre petitioner is in relation to his left lower limb, irnpaired reach. Keeping in view, the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs, AJag Kumar and Anotherl, tlr.e disability in relation to whole body is scaled down to 25o/". The loss of earnings is also assessed as 257o by the Tribunal, the same is upheld by this Court. However, there is an error with regard to the ' 20l1 (l) scc 343 I 10 ETD,J MACMA No.127 2021 multiplier taken by the trial Court. The petitioner is aged 50 years \ as on 3O.O6.2O17 as disclosed by the disability certificate under Ex.A13, that means, he must have been 48 years old in the year

2015. Considering the said aspect as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma Vs. Detht Tvansport Corporation2 the multiplier that has to be applied for his age is "13'while the trial Court has taken it as "L2". Therefore, the loss of future earnings would be the annual earning x 25x muitiplier = 84,O00 x 13 x 25llOO : 2,73,OOO/-. g) With regard to the medical expenses, it is already held in the preceding paragraphs t1at the petitioner could prove the medical bills of Rs.5,78,645/- and 61,7a1/- which comes to a total of Rs.6,4O,4261-. In addition to that the petitioner must have sustained expenses towards extra nourishment, Transport, Attendant and Incidental Expenditure. Therefore, an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- is awarded to meet the said expenses. h) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: SI. No. i Name of the heads 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering . iwaraid by Rs this Court 1,OO,OOO/- t I ' 2oo9 (C) scc l2l I 11 ETD.J MACMA No.l.27 2021 2 i 3

4. Compensation of loss of earnings F"Sl six mont]-g)- _ ., l,oss of future earnings due to disabiLi ty , Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, tran ort. extra-nourishment Total Roundr: 42,OOO /- 2,73,OOO I 6,7O,426/- LO,As,426l- , 1 i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs. 10,85,5 00/- while the Tribunal has awarded Rs.8,9O,000/-. Therefore, it is opined that the petidoner is entitled for enhancement of compen sation. Hence, point No. 1 is zrnswered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.2: I \ It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need interference with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs. 1O,85,500/- t I from that of Rs.8,9O,OOO/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

17. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A frled by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the order dated 03.09.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1815 of 2016 by the Chairman-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.8,9O,000/- to 1O,85,5OO/- and the enhanced amount of I \ 72 EIO,J MACMA No.127 2021 compensation shall carry interest @ Z.So/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The respondent Nos.l to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within- a feriod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if arry already deposited. On such deposit, the appeliant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any securitlr. Miscelianeous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. I To //TRUE COPY// Sd/. K A'I/IMAJI ASSISTANT REG'STRAR \ V sEcTtoN oFFICER I '1 . The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- XXV| Additionar chief ^ Judge,-City C]vil 9ourts, Hyderabad. (With Records if any) 2. One CC to SRt. G NARENDER REDDV Advocate IOpUCi ' ' 3. One CC to SRt P.HARTNATH GUPTA, Advocite tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies w \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 I I o il- l- 7O o.$ f' JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.127 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED @ ,, i:r.. i' 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 DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 127 OF 2021 Between: Y.N H.No aggswara Rao, Sio. Y. Koteswara Rao Aged about 47 years, Occ: Nil .12 -4-7lBlClD, Asif Nagar Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad - 500038 ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1 Mr. Pradeep Gollapalli, S/o. Babu Rao Aged about 35 years, Occ: Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP-21W-0479 Rlo. H.No.20-25-10, Prakash Nagar Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh -522 601

2. Smt. Vijayamma Gollapalli, Wo. Babu Rao Aged. Major, Occ: Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP-21W-0479 Rlo. H.No.17-14-37, Sivasanjeevaiah Cotony Narasaraopet, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh -522 601

3. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manager Hyderabad Regional Office, Motor Third Party Claim Cell, 5'n Floor, G Block, Surya Towers, S.P. Road, Secunderabad -500003 ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO. 1815 of 2016 dated. O3tOgl2OzO on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing 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. G NARENDER REDDY, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI P.HARINATH GUPTA, Counsel for the Respondent No.3. ,,/ This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed modifying the order dated. 03.09,2020 passed in M.V.O.P'No.1815 of 2016 by the Chairman-Motor Vehicles Accident Clams Tribunal-cum-XXV| Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad enhancing the compensation from RS.8,90,0001 to Rs,10,85,500/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till realization;

2. That the interest for the period of delay is forfeited; 3. That the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are be and hereby 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;

4. That on such deposit, the appellant is be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- K AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR c\\dI! SECTION OFFICER To

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies ,F*.9 ot$ t\.o. > + lt / o HIGH COURT DATED:2010212025 (r ,z \\, \ DECREE MACMA.No.127 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED @ ge ,tlrx'