The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Dissr,rtisfied u'ith the compensation amoltnt awarded by the Cl'rairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-<:um- the Court of Special Serssions Judge for Trial ol cases under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrociti:s) Act .cum- the Court of Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P.No.25 of 2014, dated 12.09.20 19, the claim petitioner/ injurerl in the said O.P. preferred the prcsent Appeal seeking enhancement of compensal ion am()unt.

2. For t}-re sake of convenience, the part es hereinafter be referred as they rvere arrayed before the iearned 'lribunal.

3. The }rrief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ injured filed a petition r,rnder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 ol A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 read with Section 14O of M.V.Act claiming conrpensaLion of Rs.5,O0,O0O I - for the injuries sustained bl him in a Motor Vehicle Accident that occurred in the year 2013. lt is statecl b1. the petitioner that on O6.09.2013 at about 15.25 hours, when thc petitioner along with Gorati Kondal was proceeding towards Singarajpally sub-station fron Thowklapuram Village side on Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No..AP-24L-5OO5 and when reacherl outskirts of the said Thowklapuram Village, one RTC I I I I I 2 Bus bearing No.AP-llZ-8 came in a rash and negligent manner from Singarajpaily side and gave dash to the motorcycle on which the petitioner was travelling. As a result, the persons travelling on the said motorcycle received grievous injuries and fractures and were 'shifted to Government Hospital, Kalwakurthy in 1O8 Ambulance and from there, the petitioner was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malalkpet, Hyderabad, for better treatment'

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Dindi Police Station registered a case in Crime irlo. 1 1 1 of 2O 13 under Section 338 IPC, conducted investigation and laid charge sheet against the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-112-8.

5. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that prior to accident, he was quite hale and healthy and was working as Junior Lineman in Electricity Department, Dindi and usgd to earn Rs. 15,000/- per month approximately. Due to the said accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was on leave for 3O days and incurred huge amount for his treatment and medicines. As such, he filed claim petition against the respondent/ Corporation seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on all counts.

6. Respondent/RTC filed its counter denying the averments of the claim petition including, age, income, avocation and contended that the owner and insurer of the motorbike on which the petitioner travelled were not added as party respondents to the 3 claim petition and that the compensation clairned is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the clairn made against it.

7. Based on the contentions made by both the parties, the learned Trilrunal hacl framed the following issu,es for conducting trial: - 0 Whether the claimant sustoined injuies due to rash and negliqent diuing of the diuer of RTC Bus beaing No.AP- I tz 8? (ii) Whether the claimant ts entitled for compensotion? If so, to LDital omount and from uhom? (iii) To rtlmt relieJ?

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ inju red himself was examined as PWi and got examined PWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A 1r) on his behalf. On behalf of resporLdents, no oral or docume ntarv evidence was adduced.

9. After <'onsidering the evidence and documonts available on record, the lc'rlrned Tribunal had partly- allowed the claim petition of the pe titioncr/ injured by a\Marding compensation of Rs. 1,0O,0O0/ - along with simple interest @ 6%o per annum from the date of filing of petition till the date of realizatiorL payable by the respondent/ R'lC. Having not satislied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claim petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeai seeking enhancement ofthe same. 4

10. Heard Sri P.S.P'Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant/injured as weil as Sri A'Ravi Babu, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/TSRTC '

11. The hrst and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/ injured is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A4, wherein it is clearly mentioned that the appellant was admitted in Yashoda Hospitai and took treatment in the said Hospital from 06.09.20 13 to 24.09 '2013' It also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A7- Original final bill and pharmacy bil1s and failed to award compensation under the heads of loss of earnings, pain and suffering, medical bills and Hospital charges and hence, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. Per contra, learned counseJ for the respondent/RTC contendedthatthelearnedTribunal,afterconsideringallthe aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted'

13. Now the point that arises for determination is' Whether the order passed bg the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? POINT:- 14. This Court has perused the evidence and documents available on record. The petitioner/ injured examined himself as 5 PW1 and rt'iterated the contents made in the ,:laim petition and deposed about the manner of accident. During r;ross-examination, he admitted that he rvas driving the Hero Honda CD Delux bearing No.AP-24L-5005 and the complainant was the F,illion rider on the snid motor cvcie. He also stated that he was having license to drive the motorc],('le. In order to prove the injuries r;ustained by him, hc got examined PWs 2 & 3 on his behalf.

15. PW2- Surgeon and RMO in Yashoda Hospital, deposed in his evidence tha t the petitioner was admitted in I heir Hospital on

06.09.20 I3 v.ilir the lollowing injures:

1. Head injurr', Polvtrar-rma, Facial injuries.

2. Right Fronto Ethmoidal fracture with nasal bond

3. Laceration about 5x3 cm, height over (Right) Br:dge of nose

4. Contusion cvulsion of upper eye lid.

5. Sutured Lacerated u,ound 4 cm over right foot.

6. Contusion ,rf lrontal loose with haemorrhagic with fracture depress.

16. He further stated that the petitioner was operated for CSF leak by pcrfrrlming llifrontal Craniotomy + Excision of deprened fracture Duraplzrty + Closure ol CSF leak under Arresthesia and he recovered well and discharged on 24.09.2013. He stated that the petitioner spent an amount of Rs.26,495/- towardrs post operation medical bills. He further deposed that the pr:titioner cannot ,r.-$.'.. -./ I I i l I i 6 perform his norrnal works and he requires Plastic surgery for depressed nasal bone rhino-plastic which costs Rs.2,50,OO0/- towards hospital charges. 17 . PW3-RMO of Tirumala Hospital, Hyderabad, deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital on 26.09.2013 with complications of high grade fever, cough and with Chillandwastreatedwithsympathetictreatmentandantibiotic fluid and was discharged on 31.09'2013' The petitioner had spent an amount of Rs. 1,05,494/- towards Hospital bills which includes discharge, medicine and consultation' He also stated that ExsA6 to A8 were issued by their Hospital'

18. Though PWs 2 & 3 were cross-examined, nothing adverse was elicited from them to disbelieve their testimony. Hence, their evidence can be treated as worthwhile' 1g. Coming to the documents marked under Exs'Al to A10' a perusal of Ex.A 1 shows that Police of Dindi Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 111 of 2013 under Section 337 IPC' conducted investigation and {iled charge sheet under Ex'A2 against the driver of the APSRTC Bus. Ex'A3 is the Medico Legal record/lnjury Certilicate issued by Yashoda Hospital which shows that the petitioner had received (i) RTA-Head Injury, (ii) Laceration about (5x3cm) over (Rt) Bridge of Nose, (iii) Evulsionof upper eye lid, (iv) Sututed lacerated wound (4cm) over (Rt) foot, (v) Right l w. : ,1,.' "/ .. I I 7 lronto Ethmoidal fracture and (vi) Nasal bone fracture and the said injuries arc grievous in nature. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by Yushoda Hospital. Ex.AS is the Disc)-iarge Summary of Tirumala Mr.rlti Speciality Hospital. Ex.A6 is the report of yashoda Hospi&rl pertaining to Plain CT Scan of Brain arLd Facial Bones of the petitioner/ inj ured. Ex.A7 is the Final Bill issued by Tirumala Multi Specia lty Hospital showing that the peti:ioner incurred a sum of Rs.1,05,494/- towards Hospital bill. Ex.A.B are the original prescriptions. irrvestigation report and scan rep()rt. Ex.A9 is the copy of SR (APSRTC) and Ex.A10 are the X-ray filrns.

20. From tire above oral evidence coupled with the documentary evidence marked under Exs.A1 to A1O, it is clear that the petitioner/ inj urcd sustained grievous injuries in an accident that occurred. due to rash and negligent driving of the criver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP 1 1Z-8.

21. Coming to the compensation awarded, the ,earned Tribunal granted an anrount of Rs. 10,000/- towards transllort expenses, a sum of Rs.80,000/ lor medical treatment arrd Rs. 10,OO0/- towards pain and sulfering which in total arrived at Rs.1,O0,OO0/-.

22. The othr:r contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/injured in the present Appeal is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A7- Final bill issu,:d bv Tirumala ) 8 Multi Speciality Hospital and also failed to consider the medical bills filed along with Ex.A7

23. A perusal of Ex.A7 shows that the petitioner had been diagnosed for post operative .Sepsis in Tirumala Multi Speciality Hospital and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs' 1,05,494/- towards room rent, medicines, investigations and consultation charges apart from treatment undergone by h im' This Court considers the said amount to be desirable and is inclined to award the same. A perusal of the medical bills annexed to Ex'A7 shows that the petitioner/ injured had incurred an amount of Rs'24,O28 I - towards purchase of medicines. This Court deems fit and proper to award the same to the petitioner/ injured' Hence, the total compensation to which the petitioner/injured is entitled to is calculated as under:- Sl.No. (11 Details of head t2l Amount awarded by Tribunal (3t Amount awarded by this Court (4t 1

2. J 4

5. 6. Rs. 10,0O0/- Transport expenses Medical treatment Rs.80,O00 Pain and suffering Rs.1O,O00/- Final Hospital Bill amount Medical bills Total Total 3+4 = Rs.2,29 s22l- Rs.1 oo ooo/- Rs. 1,05,494l - Rs.24,O281-

24. Hence, the aPPellant/ injured IS entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,29,522 I - 9

25. As fir r as interest on the compensation is concerned, the learned Tribur-ral awarded interest @ 6 o/o per annum which this Court finds it to be meager and is inclined to enhance the same @

7.5o/o per annum by relying upon the decision of the by re\ring upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersr.

26. In the result, the Appeal filed by the appellant/injured is partly-a11o'"ved by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribr-rnal from Rs. i,00,000/- to Rs.2,29,522/- which shall interest @ 7.3'% per annum payable by the resporrdent/ RTC within a period of tu,o months from thc date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appellant/ injurt:d is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, sha{L stand close 27 t zot3 Aq r\of z, ot3 (, ALT 35 sd/- M ASSISTANT SMAIL STRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- special Sessions JudgeforTrialofS.Cs/S.T.s(POA)Cases-cum-AdditionalDistrictJudge, Nalgonda

2. One CC to Sri PSP. Suresh Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A Ravi Babu (SC FOR TSRTC)[OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies t. Lam/,:h ?K t I i i HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 '( oR lHE s14 ii 21ilAn m v o JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.277 of 2020 ?,t * t)l ?C._ i' 't* -.i= PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA \, ccp(cA ,7 * [ 32531 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No: 277 of 2020 Between: Mudavath Kishan, S/o Hemla, Age: 35 years, Occ: Junior Lineman in Electricity Department, R/o Bhrahmanapally Thanda, H/o Vavikol Village, G_undlapalli (Dindi) Mandal, Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Reddi colony, Deverakonda Road, Nalgonda District. ...AppellanUClaimant AND APSRTC, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, rep by its, General ManageriManaging Directoi. (owner of the bus bearing No.AP 't 1 Z B of Devarakonda Depot) ,..RespondenURespondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated '12-09'2019 passed in O.P.No.2S of 2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Sessions Judge for Trial of S.C.s/S.T.s (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri PSP. Suresh Kumar, Advocate for the appellant and Sri A. Ravi Babu (SC FOR TSRTC) for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Appeal filed by the appellanUinjured be and hereby is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.l,00,0001 to Rs.2,29,5221 which shall interest @ 7.5o/o per annum ... __ _i, 7 ,// a period of two months from the date payable by the respondenVRTC within of receipt of a copy of this order; That upon such deposit, the appellanUinjured be and hereby is entifled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security; and That there shalt be no order as to costs in this appeal. 2 a //TRUE COPYII sd/- MOHD. ts{lrAtl ASS|STANT REGI/rRAR To, secrroNlrrcen l The chairman Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum- special sessions Judge for Trial of S.C.s/S T.s (pOA) Cases-cum_Additional District Judge, Nalgonda 2. Two CD Copies 10,,,\% I I HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.277 ot 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA u.dn^ \5' ,-U-'