Hearcl Sri K. prabhakar Rao, learned c.unser for the v. Venkata Rami Reddy

For c.nvenience and clarity, the parties herei. are referred to as they wcrc arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 3L.12.2o16 the petitioner went to Government Hospitar, Khammam along with his villager Arem Laxmaiah and after dropping hirn, he was returning to his vilrage on 01.o1.2o rr at abourt 1:oo Lr.rr1., when he reached near NTpc pow-er Grid, Budidampadu, the rorry bearing No.MH-46H-3477 was parked negligently in the middre of the road without taking any precautio,s and signals in that dark night and the petitioner tried to avoid the ,cciclent, but he hit his auto on rear side of the lorry. As a result thc petitioner sustained fracture injuries, immediately he rvas shifted to Government Hospitar, Khammam and from there to Sigma I{ospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. He incurred ETD,J MACMA No.310-2021 2 hugemedicalexpensesandthus'heclaimedacompensationof Rs.2,0O,O00/-.

4.TherespondentNo.lfiledcoutrterdenyingtheavermentst>f thepetitionwithregardtotheoccurrenceoftheaccident,age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further contended that thedriverofthelorryisanexperiencedpersonandthathehad vaiid d.riving license as on the date of the accident and prayed to dismiss the Petition S.TherespondentNo.2/insurerhasalsofiledcounterdenying theavermentsofthepetitionwithregardtotheoccurrenceofthe accident,age,avocationandincomeofthedeceased.Itisfurther contendedthattheaccidentoccurredduetotherashand negligenceoftheautodriveri.e.,thepetitionerhereinandthatthe iorrydriverisnotresponsiblefortheaccident.Itisfurther contendedthatthepetitionisbadfornonjoinderofinsurerofthe auto. tt is further contended that the driver of the 10rry did not havevaliddrivinglicenseaSonthedateoftheaccidentandthus, they are not liable to pay any compensation'

6.Basedontheaboverivalcontentions,theTribunalhas framed the following issues:-

1. Whether the accident occurred on O1'01'2O77' due to rash on7"itsiiJntit 'f ti"- a*ii of the torry beains No'MG- 46H'i;ii' as plead'ed bg ttrc petitioner? Whether the petitioner is entitled for claim'of compen'sation? If so, to uthat quantu" ini 7'o" il'i"n of the respondents?

2. / t .*-" -*' ETD,J MACMA No.310 202r.

4. To what relief ? 3

7. 'lo prove their case, the petitioners got examined pw L and, 2 and got. mi.rrked Exs.Ai to Ag. on behalf of the respondents, RWl w'as examined and Ex.Bl was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunzrl has granted a compensation of Rs.1,0s,0oo/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appcal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 9- Hearcl Sri K. prabhakar Rao, learned c.unser for the petitioner and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. l,carned counsel for the appellant has subrnitted that the appellant hets sustained grievous injuries in the accident and that the injuries and the treatment underwent by him is proved thourgh the evidence of pw2, but the Tribunal failed to consider the same. He further argued that the petitioner sustained disfigurement of face. Though, it is observed in paragraph No.23 of the Judgment with regard to the said fact, the Tribunal failed to award any compensation on that account. He further argued thzrt the Doctor who treated the petitioner is examined as pw2 and he stated about the disability sustained by the petitioner, but only the percentage was not deposed by him and thus, he prayed to consider and award compensation towards future earnings. He f.rrther argued ETD,J MACMA No.310-2021 4 thatwithallthegrievousinjuriesthataresufferedbythe petitioner,herequiredanattendanttotakeCareofhimduringthe treatment, thus prayed to award some amount towards attendant chargesandalsotou,ardsfuturemedicalexpenses.Hetherefore, prayed to enhance the compensation' ll.Thelearnedcounselfortherespondentsontheotherhand hasarguedthattheTribunalhasrightlygrantedthecompensation byconsideringtheevidenceonrecord.Thereisnodisability certificatefiledbythepetitionerandthus'noamountcanbe awardedfordisabitity.Hefurtherargued'thattheTribunalhas awarded amount towards pain and suffering and also transportation and has considered the evidence in a proper perspective. He therefore, prayed to uphold the orders of the Tribunal by dismissing this appeal' |2.Basedontheaboverivalsubmission,thisCourtframesthe following points for consideration:- l.WhethercompensationgrantedbgtheTribunalisjustandreasonable? 2. Whether the Order and' Decree passed bg the Tibunal need ang interference?

3. To what relief

13. Point No.1:- a)PWlhasassertedthathesustainedgrievousinjuriesinthe accidentandthatheunderwenttreatmentatGovernmentHospital and also at Sigma Hospital, Disukhnagar. In support of his cas' I I ( t 5 ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021 he has filed Exs.A3 to A5 and A7. Ex.A3 is the Medico-Legal case Record issued by the Sigma t-lospital. It shows ttrat the petitioner \rzas examined on 02.0r.2017 at L2:oo ?.ffi., and that he sustained head injury rvith subdural haemorrhage in an ar:cident. He filed medical trills under Ex.A4 and supportcd by prcscription under Bx.AS, which is issued by Karthik Super Specizility Hospital on

28.o2.2o17. The prescription reveals that the parient approached the Doctor with a complaint of cough, thus, it is not relevant to the accident. Another prescription, dated 0g.02 .2017 reveals that he approachecl the Doctor with post-operative complaints and further he filed sorne more prescriptions of subsequent pr:r.iods which do not have any nexus to that of the injuries srrstained in the accident. only the prescription dated o9.o2.2o17 pertains to the post-operative foilow up treatment. Ex.A7 is the Discharge Summary which discloses that the petitioner underrn,ent treatment at Sigma t{ospital under Aarogra Mithra Scheme and that he underwent surgery on 02.or.2olr and, was admitted as inpatient on 03.01.2017 and discharged on 2t.ol.2olz and that he is a white ration card holder. Therefore, it is elicited that he underwent free treatment in sigma Hospital. He further filed li:w photographs under Ex.A8 to show the disfigurement of his scalp. b) The petitioner got examined pw2/Dr. p.Asaadharaan, who works as a Neuro Surgeon and runs Karthik Suiper Speciality Hospital, Khammam. His evidence rel,eals that the petitioner 6 ETD,J MACMA No.310-2021 underwentoperationatSigmaHospital,whereinheunderwent Decompressive, cranicetomy and S'D'H evacuation of subdural haematoma. He also deposed with regard. to certain symptoms o[ heaclache, confusion and giddiness which wouid arise out of the saidinjury.Hefurtherdeposcd.thatthepetitignerhasresidual paresis hemopersites i'e', weakness of left upper and lower limbs anditispermanentdisabitity,buthehasnotstatedaboutany percentage of disabilitY' c)lnhiscrossexamination,itiselicitedthathehasno knowledge about the previous history of the petitioner and that giddiness and weakness depends upon the condition of the patient and he also stated that he cannot say the condition of the patient afterAugust,2OlTastherecoverydependsontheweakness' Thus,theevidenceonrecordclinchinglyshowsthatthepetitioner underwent free treatment at Sigma Hospital and that he underwent follow up treatment to Karthik Super Speciality Hospital. PW2 has deposed '*,ith regard. to the follow up treatment, but has not asserted the nature of disability and percentage of disability.Duringthesaidperiodoftreatment,thepetitionermust haveundergonesomepainandsuffering.Keepingthesamein view,anamountofRs.5o,000/-isgrantedbytheTribunaltowards pain and suffering, which is opined to be just and reasonable' d) With regard to medical exPenses' he has filed medical bills under Ex.A4 to an extent of Rs.ls,gso/-, the same is awarded' ln .:;, 7 ETD,J MACMA No.310_2021 addition to the medical expenses, he must have i.curred expenses towards attendant charges, transportation, extrir.-nourishment, rncidental expenses etc, therefore an additroiral amount of Rs.So,Oooi - is granted uncler- this head as hc unck.rlent follow up treatment {br almost eight months. c) It is borne out by record that the petitioner is an auto driver and he stated that he used to earn Rs.20,000 l- pe month. He has .ot filed any RC to show that he is the o\rrner of the vehicle. However, the accident occurred while he was drii.ing the vehicle and he has also filed Driving License under E;<.,t6 valid from 16.09.2008 toi5.o9.2028. Therefore on a reasonable hypothesis, he must have been earning around Rs.g,ooo/- per month as a driver. 0 The income as assessed by the Tribunal t.o the extcnt of Rs.8,000/- per month is held to be just and reasorerble . A list of prescription is filed under Ex.AS and the doctor r.r ho has issued them is examined as pw2. The record discloses tlrat he went for follow up treatment under pW2 from February Lo August 2OI7. Thus, for o'er a period of six months, he was uncler follow up trcatment u.der PW2. It is elicited from him that trr: has not seen the patient since 08.08.20r7. The prescriptions ars. disclose that from February to August 2oLT, he was under his treatment for about a period of six months. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner might have taken another two months fc.,;- his recovery ETD,J MACMA No.310-2021 8 and therefore, all together loss of earnings for eight months is awarded. Thus the loss of earnings comes to (8'000 x 8) Rs.64,00O/ - g) Though the counsel has argued with regard to the compensation towards disability and future earnings, no Disability Certificateisfiledandhence,theSamecannotbeconsidered. h)InallthepetitionerisentitledtothefollowingCompensation amounts:- Compensation u 'injuries, shock, nder the head Pain and suffering sation of loss o f earnings Compensation ,lna"r the head of hosp ital, Medical ExPenses' transPort, extra-nourishment and other incidental 50,O0o/- 64 000 65,850/- Total Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is 1 79 1 2 3 4 0 entitled'iscalculatedaSRs.i,79,850/-whiletheTribunalhas grantedRs.1,05,oo0/-Thus,itisheldthatthepetitionerisentitled for enhancement of comPensation Point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. NO.2: ItisheldthattheorderanddecreepassedbytheTribunal needtobemodifiedwithregardtothequantumofcompensation. ThisCourthasenhancedthecompensationtoRs.l,Tg,Ssol-from that of Rs. 1,05,OO0/ - i'e', awarded by the Tribunal' f ( --' | .:r:.1 'r'3 !':ia( :: 'i;i;' ;!' 9 ETD,) MACMA No.31O_2021 Point No.2 is answered accordingly i5 PAINTIo.& In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the clairnant is partly allorved, rlodifl,ing the Order and Decree dated |T.O3.'2O2O in M.v.o.P.No"463 ol 2018 passed by the Motor Ac:cident claims Tribunal-ctrm-Special Sessions Judc for Fast Trac king thc cases Relating to At.rocities Against Women-cum-VIII Adciitional District Juclge, Khammam, enhancing the compe nsation from Rs. 1 ,O5,0OO / - to L,79,85O /- and the enhanct:d amount of compensaLion shall carry interest (t! 7 .5o/o per annurn.from the date of claim petition till realization. The claimant shalt pay the deficit court [ec. Flowr:ver, the interest for the period of dc.lay is torfcited. The responcients are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accruecl 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. on such deposit, the appellzrnt is entitled to rvithdr-au, the said amount without furnishing an1, security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// :iD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER The Motor At;cident Claims Tribunal -cum- MACT-cum-special Sessions ; uOgJ ioi' FTC i'eiating to A.ttrocities against Women-cum -',/l l AdCitional District Judge, at Khamrnam. One CC to -SRt KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Coiries \ To, 1

2. 2 4. GEw HIGH COURT DATED:O41O712025 I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.310 of 2o21 -f ilE S r)q J3 \ ,J * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS !l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THEHoNoURABLEsMTJUSTICETIRUMALADEVIEADA 1 1 Between: Ugg;* Venkateswarlu, S/o .Brksham,. aged about 42 years, Occ: Auto Drlver, nidfimmaraopeta village, Enkoor Handal' presenfly R/o H.No. 5-5-134t313, Mustafa Nagar, Khammam city and Ditsrict ...APPELLANT/C LAIM PETITION ER AND

1. tvl/s Best Roadways Limited and another, [qP. by. r-ts tvlqnqgel, Transit Godown No. 85, Trunk T6rminal Complei, Neil Libra,'Kalamboli-Panvel, Kalamboli, tr4aharashtra - 410 218.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Mumbai, represented by its Branch th;;rgh its Locat'B-ranah ntrnrgei-Oiii CtuU Road, Khammam City and District' ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehicleAct,againsttheJudgment and Decree dated 17t03t2a20 passed in MVOP No. 463 of 2O1B on the file of the court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal -cum- MACT-cum-special sessions Judge for FTC relating to Attrocities against women-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, at Khammam. 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 K. Prabhakar Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No'1 and Sri V' Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate appeared Respondent No'2' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,05,000/_ to 1,79,850t- 3' That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of craim petition tirr realization. 4' That the claimant shall pay the deficit Court fee, and the interest for the period of delay is fcrfeited. 5' That the Respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensatron amount with accruecj interest wiitrin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such depositlthe appellant is entiiled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. '

6. That there shail be no order as to costs in this appear l[True Copyl/ SDi- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Motor Accident ciaims Tribunar-cum-speciar Sessions Judge for Fast It'gloirc the cases Relating to AtrocitG" A5"i"riilli",i"n.rm-vnt Additionat District Judge, Khammam Two CD Cooies. GE 2 { I T I HIGH COURT DATED:04lA7nA?.S DECREE MACMA.No.310 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS