The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR FI DDY MACMA No.175 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: This appeal is hled by the appellant_claimanL ur ler Section 173 of thc Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg, seeking enhancj Dent ol the compensation awarded by the chairman, Motor Acci(rr nts crailns Tribunal-ctrm XII Additional Chief Judge, City I vrl Court, Secunderabad (for short ,,the Tribunal,,) in M_V.O.p.No , rJ6 of 2(,1!l dalcd 27.0;.2018. negligent

2. T}le brief facts of the case are that on 28.O7.2C12 at aboul 7 30 p m , rvhirt: the appetlant was walking on the extr(.r re rcrt sidc of the road near Laxmi Talkies, yadagirigutta, a Man rt Wagon_R car bearing No.Ap 2g EE gg99, driven in a rash ;rr< manner at high speed, dashed against him, causi r grievous injuries. Il is stated that appellant was initia I thc Government Area Hospital, yadagirigutta, anrl 1 sevr.rity of ,nluries, he was shi[te.l to Kaminenr Hn; Nagar, where he undenvent treatmenl as inpatient continued treatmcnt at Jaya Krishna Hospital, Rirr I Clarming cornpensation of Rs.8,OO,OO0/ , the appellar 1 abovc O.P. against respondent No-1, the owner, and -r No.2, the insurcr of the offending vehicle. lc l.l the 'Lurkt:n to rital, L.B. rnd later tllecl thc rnthapur. spondent multiple -- 2

3. Respondent No. 1 remained ex p()rte. Respondent No.2_ Insurance Company filed a counter disputing thc moclc of accident, negligence, nature of injuries, and lhc quantum o[ compensation, and contended that thc claim was excessrve.

4. On appreciation of both oral and documentar), cvtdence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the offending vehicle and that the policy issucd by respondent No.2 was in force and accortlingly, awarded compensation of Rs.5, 12,640/- u,ith proportionate costs and interest at 97o per annum from the date of petilion till the date of realization. However, on verification of the award, it is noticed that the Tribunal, while tabulating compensation under r,arious hcads, arrived at a total of Rs.4,79,2321_, but erroneously mentioned the finaI figure as Rs.5,12,640/-. The difference is not supported by any calculation or reasoning in the award, As the arithmetrcal total of all the heads awarded by the Tribunal comes to only Rs.4,79,232/-, the hgure of lts.5,12,640/ is clearl,v a computational error_ Therefore, this Court proceeds to examine the claim for enhalcement keeping in view the actual amounts awarded under each head. 5- Heard learned counsel for the appellant clairnzrnt, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurancc Company and perused the record - rb-- : l

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits amounts arvarded towards transportation, extra nourisn r that the :nt, pain :Lnd suffering and injuries arc mcagre, despite thc adrr tted fact thal thc appellant suffcred multiple fractures involving t u-- pelvis, ribs and internal organs, requiring prolonged hospitah u, tion and continued treatment.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for I t ;pondent No.2 submits that thc Tribunal has examined the eviden: in detail ancl gran[ed reasonable compensation and that no enhal :cment is warranted.

8. A perusal of the record reveals that the appellanl iustarned fracture ol the left ilium extending into left sacrotl ac -joint, fracturcs of Ieft superior and inferior pubic ramus, fract r e ol right superior pubic ramus, facture of right 8,9 r 5s with hacmop r rcu mor horax. und liver laceration with haemop' itoneum. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.A-s, A-7 and A-9 substerntiate the seriousness of the injuries and the treatment. The 'Tribunal accepted the medical expenc rrolonged turer bu t awarded nominal amounts under several heads Torvards transportation, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,OOO/-. Tht appellant rvas shifted lrom Yadagirigutta to Kamineni Hospital ar I later to .laya Krishna tlospital, apart from multiple follow-ups. 'It l arrlount awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and therefore, tl : same is .\ .-._- I - enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. Towards extra nourishrnent, only Rs.3,000/- was awarded. In cases Lnvolving pelvic and rilr fractures, nutritional supplemcnts arc essential for rccovcn, An amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head is Just. tior pain and suffcring, the Tribunal awardcd Rs.20,O00/-. Considering the nature of injuries, prolonged hospitalization, internal [raurna and residual discomfort, an amount of Rs.60,OO0/- rvould be appropriate.

9. The Tribunal did not grant any consolidatcd anrount under the head oI injuries. Having rcgard to rhe multiple fracturcs and complications, an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is warranted under this head. The amounts awarded towards medical bills and loss of income are supported by the documentarv evidencc and do not warrant interference. Thus, the total compcnsation payablc to the appellant is tabulated as under; sl. No. I 2 3 4 5 6 Name of Head Compensati Amount ""1 Transportation Extra nourishment Medical expenses Pain and suffering l.oss of earnings during treatment For injuries TOTAL Rs. 10 Rs. 10 Rs.4,08,232 Rs.60,000 Rs.zt5.0O0 Rs. 1,20,OO0 Rs.6,53,3OO lEe!!qe4 "!D l l

10. In the result, this appeal is partly allorv,:r and thc Compcllsatioi) arr,,ar<led by thc Tribunal is .- r ranced to Rs.6,53,300/ .'lhc cnhanced compensation shall cal,r intcrcst at 7 5t'h per arrrurn from thc date of petition till t Lr: date ot rcalization. 'l'l)c resI o[ the terms and conditions inrDr sed by th,-, 'l'ribunal shall remarn unaltered. No order as to costs As a sr:quel, the miscellaneous petitions pen I ag, if any, shall stand c loscd. SD/- I/I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS S TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Secunderabad. (wrth records if any)

1. The lvlotor Accrdents Claims Xll Addt. Chief Judge )ity Civil Courts at 2 One CC to SRI T Rahul. Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl.Katta Lakshmi sravya, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies JA/PSI, ?.tc, /l \-?,{ !_) . r,"i' T!,P' l:" HIGH COURT DATED 18t11t2025 JUDGIVIENT MACMA.No.175 of 2019 M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED .^-\ (2R*- l1\ ?\rz IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C V, BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 175 OF 20'19 Between G.Venkatesh, S/o. Bixapathi, Aged 39 years, Occ- Business, R/o, H.No-12- 1 0-339, Seethapalmandi, Warasiguda, Secunderabad. Petitioner/Claimant AND

1. L.Bala Latha Devi, Wo. L. Uday Kumar Goud, Aged- Major, Business, R/o. Quarter No. C-44l'1 1, Lab Quarters, Kanchan Hyderabad- 500058. Occ- Bagh,

2. National lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep by its Senior Divisional Manager, 'lst Floor, Swapnalok Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderabad-500003 Respondents/Respondents No. 1 &2 Appeal u/sec. 173 of motor vehicles act against the order and decree made in OP No.406 of 201 3 dated 271O712018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Xll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Secunderabad ORDER: 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 Sri T.Rahul, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Katta Sravya, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly Allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,53,3001

2. That the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of petition till the date of realizatron,

3. That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unalteredi

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-TT JAWAHAR REDDY ASS I TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N*c TION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accidents Claims Xll Addl. Chief Judg€. Crty Civil Courts at Secunderabad. (with records if any) Two CD Copies 2 JA/PSL P$ct . (J ( * -il{: S r, li liq ,1t]26 t o na f CH HIGH COURT DATED 18t11t2025 DECREE MACIUA No 1 75 of 2019 M.A.C.M,A. IS ALLoWI]D Pnc;. t1l>l)4.