Smt T. lvlariyamma Wo T. Mathyas Reddy Aged. 33 years v. Syed lbrahim and another

THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA D,1 i/I EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.359 0F. 2021 JUDGMENT: 'llrrs zrppeaL js l'ilcd bv thc ciaimant, aggrievt r br' lhc ()rdcr :rnrl L)ecrct cl:rtecl O:r.O I.202 1 in M.V.O.P.No.9l0 of . 117 passecl iry I I)e Chari:-mzrn, Mot()r Accident Claims Triburr I clrm- XXVI Aclditiontrl C[-rief Juclgc, C]iti,Civil Court, Hyderabarl (1or- short "the Tribu nal").

2. lior convenienr'r: :rnd clarity, the parties hereirr are rcfcrred to as thev u'cre a rrar-cd lrclore thc Tribunal.

3. The case of tlrr: petitioner belore the Tribunr I u,irs that on 27 .O1 .2013 aL aboul l2:O0 noor-r, the petitionelr rs g,ring as .r piilion ridcr. u hilc ircr husband was riding the mo r r bike beanng No.AP 24-1.-87 19 from Chevella torvards Shabad si ir:, when they rcached Shab.rd X ro:rcls, in the mean time, the ch i r:r of Maruthi BOi) bearing No.AP O9-AIr 4532 I'ras drivcn it i-l a rash and r-rcgligent lnanner a1 a high speed, came in lhe opp rsitc dircction and dashcd their nrotor bike , and she fell down rnd sustained grievous injunes. Immcdiately, she u,as shifted to (i l,t:rnrnent Area Ilospital, (lhcvella arnd that she incurred more tharr Rs.2,O0,OOO/- tou'ards mcdical treatment. Thus, she claimed a c: npensation of Bs 20.o0.00O/ -. a. ' Th(, rcs[)ond(.nl No. I remained ex-parte. \ 2 ETD,J MACMA No.359 2021 5- The respondent No.2 filed counter denying avermenLs of lhe petition with regard to the occurrence of the accidcnt, agc, trvocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contendcd lhat the drivcr of the Maruthi Car does not possess valid driving Licensc as on thc date of the accident and that their company is not liablc to pa) any comp( nsation.

6. Bascd on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has lratned the follou,ing issues for consideration:- I 2 Whether the accident took place due to raslt attd negligent diuing of the diuer of car beaing No.AP 09-AF-4532 causing injuies to the petitioner? Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensat.ion lf so, from uhom?

3. To what relieJ?

7. 'lo prove their case, the claimant got examincd P\L's.I to 5 and Exs.Al to A12, Xl and X2 were marked. On behalf of rirc respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.BI uits marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,7 3 ,200/ -. Aggrieved by the same, thc claimant had preferred the present appeal. ,l 3 ETD,] I"4Af IMA No.359_1021

9. Heard the submissions ol Sri P. ChandriL nouli, learned counsel lor thc appellant and Sri A.V.K.S Prasacl, [, arncd counsel for responclcn t No.2

10. Learnecl courrscl for thc appellant hats a' ,ued that thc Tribunal lras granted a vcry lorv amount towards itr r-Lries and that the petitioner rs a Lalrourer, and thus cannot work z ny further duc to thc injuricrs sullcrccl by i'rim. He further sr-rb r ittc(l thal the peritioncr has filed trx.A6 / Disat>ility Ccrtificate shorving 4096 clisabilitl', br-rt the pclitioncr is in<:apacitated to cLir arry work and thus 1OO",i, functiorral disabiltt, ma\1 be awardcd rs I re used tcr u'ork as a llrbourcr. Hc' lurthcr argued that t[-( tri [runa] I'ra s considererl the inconrc to be vcrl lorv and has ar ardcd meager amounts rrndL-r'various heads. I{c therefore, prayec o cnhance thc compen sa tio r r .

11. Learneci courrscl for thc rcspondcnts on the c Jrer hand has submillcd that tlrc disabilitl' ccrtificate cannot b: believed, and t.hat rhe irccicie r-r t or currcd in 2O I 3, s,hile lhe disa t ility certificate is issuccl in 2015. [[c furthcr submitted that. tht Tribunal has rightly granted compcnsation and that there is no r ;cd for further enhancement of compensation 4 ETD,J MACMA No.359 2021

12. In view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- I 2 3 Whether the clqimarut is entitled to enltancement of cotnpensatton? Wrether the Order and Decree of the Tnbwlal need urt11 rnle;krence ? fo tuhot relef ?

13. Point No.1:- a) The case of the claimant is that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation and thus, praye d e nhancemcnl of compensation. b) To prove her case, she got examincd herself and also PWs 2 to PW5. It is asserted by PWI/T. Mariyamma that she suslained grievous injuries in lhe accident and suffered acute pain and suffering and has also suffered 4O% disability. She got examined PW2 to 5 and also filed documents under Exs.A3 to A6. c) PW2lDr. P. Chandrashekar is the Professor in Orthopedics, NIMS Hospital. His evidence reveals that the petitioner \t-as admittcd in their hospital on 29 .O4.2O13 and that shc r,r'as operated to treat the Grade-II compound fracture of right tibia and that the said injury was grievous in nature and that she was discharged on 07.O5.2013. It is further elicited from him that thc iq3itio.te. was readmitted on 27.O4.2O13 as the fracture was not united and discharged ofl 26.07.2C-13. Ex.A3/Injury certificate is issued by him, Ex.A4 and A5 are the discharge summaries issued 'l 1 I I I I I I I I I I I It I i i E E 5 ETD,] l\,/lACr/lA No.359 2021 by therr hospital, Ex.A9 /Lab reports and A1l/X't ly reports are issued by their hospr tal. d) PW3/P. Raj Kumar is the Billing Manager ol 'llMS Hospital. It is elicited from him that Lhe petilioner was admit -, cL in two spclls in their hospiral and shc r.r,as charged with Rs.3Q,(l I 7/ and he has also producecl the olfice copies of the bills under F): .X1 and X2. A perusal of thc saicl exhibits reveals that the pelitiorr :r has paid lhe said amounts tos.ards the inpatient bill at NIMS Hcs pital. c) A perusal ol Ex.A3 reveals that it is an i: lrry certificate issucd by NIMS hospilal, r',,hich discloses that t he petltioner sustained Grade II compound fracture to middk: i .c distal Right tibia with abscnt foot dorsiflexion. A perusal of Ex. \5 rcveals that it is the dischargc summary showing thal thc pe titioner was admitted on 21 .O7 .2013 and discharged on 31 .O'| .t C 1 3, while she was operated on 2€:.O7 .2013. trx.A4 is the dischar 1c summary of NIMS Hospital which drscloses thal the petilioner,r rs admitted on

29.O4.2013 and discharged on O7.05.2O13. Ex.AS rhorvs that she was again admitted on 24.O7.2013 and discharged rn 31.O7.2013. All these discharge summaries and the lnjury ccr- icates support the evidence of PWs 2 and 3. Thus. it is elicited Ir: n the evidence on record, that the petitioner sustained grievous injury in the accident and she suffered a lot during the said peri rd of treatment and also has paid a bill of Rs.30,617/-. 6 ETD, N.4ACIVA No.359 2021 f) PW4/Dr. G. Venkata Ramanappa is a Medical Superintendent at Thandoor and he is a Member of District Medical Board who issued Ex.A6. His evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained 69'% of permanent disabili$ g) To provc the incomc of the petitioncr she got examined PW5, she dcposcd that she does agriculture cum-labour work and earncd Rs.6,000/- per month in the year 2013 and that she u'as earning Rs.10,0OO/- during the Srear 2018 i.e., as on the date of her dcposition. h) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sunda.ram Alliance Insurance Compang Limitedl, the Apex Court has held thaL in the absence of any proof of income u'i.th regard to a labourer, Rs.4,5OO/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In the prescnt case, the deceased was a labour as per the contention of the claim petihoner. Based on the evidence on record, on a reasonable hypothesis, her income can be safely taken as Rs.6,0OO/ - pcr month. 0 With regard to the loss of earnings, it is elicited from the nature of trcatment underwent by the petitioner that she was admitted for tlr,o spells. Thus, it is opined that she has been admitted twice that too with a gap of two months. Therefore, it is opined that shc must have suffered for another four months to ' (2oJ"r.) 12 scc 236 1 l i i I t i I I I i I I I i ! t i ! ! I I c EI t I cI I & I E i : E ! ,' t I I .,,:.. :.a.u 1 ETD,] t.4ACilA No.359 2021 recover. Therefore loss of earnings is awarded for s >- rionths i.e., Rs.6,0OO x 6 u.hich comes up to (36,000/ ). j) Keeping in vieu, the suflering underwent by :r:-in tu,o spells, 11 15 arpu-rcd th:rt Rs.1,00,O00/ if arvarded under lh,: lead pain and suflc:-ing , it u,ould be just and reasonable. k) With regard lo the medical cxpenses, f s.30,716l- is awarded. Since, she suflered for about two months n tl'rc hospital and :rlso further she n'right have taken another i ur months to reco\rer. Keeping in view the entire evidence on reo, rd :rn antoun[ of Rs.5O,00O/- is granted tonards ir-rcick:rr eLl cxpenscs, transportatiorl, extra-nourishment, attendant ch:ei ps. Therefore, an amount oI i.e., Rs.3O,7 L6 + 50,0OO/ - whir:rr conles up to Rs.80,716/ is granted undcr this hezrd. 1) With regard to loss of future earnings, .c zrge of the petitioner is '38' years as per the disability certifica 1 : issued in the year 2O15. The contention ol the respondent cou: sel is thert the disability certificate cannot be believed as it is is-. r c:d Ln 2015. A perusal of trx.A6 revcals that, it is issued by the t istrict Medical Board on examination of the petitioner. Thus it car 'ce considered to award loss of future earnings due to funclror r I disability. It discloses that the petrtioner suffered 69% disabilil_i to right lower limb due to impaired reach. Though, the ap: :llant counsel ccnlended that 10O% disability is to be taken, this lourt is bound 8 ETD, MACMA No.359 2021 by the guidelines laid down Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2, 69% disability is scaled dorvn to that of 50% to the whole body and the loss of future earnings is assessed to bc 40%. The petitioner is agcd '38' years as on 20 15. At thc time of accident in 2013, she might have been '36'ycars. 'iiirus, loss of future earnings comes to Rs.8,400 x 12 = 1,OO,800 x 4O% x 15 :Rs.6,O4,800. m) In all, the petitioner is entitlcd to the lollowing compensation amounts I 2 3 4 Co[rpensatlon under the ]read'injttrics, shock, Pain and su ffering l,oss of carnings Loss of futurc eainings duc to disabiiitl' Compensation undcr the heacl of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra nourishment and other inc ide n al pxpc!qPS Total 1,00,000/ 36,o00/ - q,04,80o1- 80,716 I a,,2115^.1"61 n) Therefore, the compensalion to rvhich the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.8,21,516/ - while the Tribunal has granted Rs.4,73,2O0/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No. 1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modihed with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the '20l t (to scc 343 compensation to Rs.8,21,516/- from that of Rs.4,7 l,2OOl- that is 9 ETD,] MACMA No.l59 2021 arvarded by tnc Tribunal Pol-rl No 2 is ansu,ered accordingly

15. Point No.3:- In the result. M.A.C.M.A Illcd by thc r:lai Lant is partly al1or,r ec.[, moclifving lhe Order and Decree datecl

05.01.2O2 1 in M.V.O.P.No.91O of 2017 passed by the Chairmarr. VIotor AccrdeL-rt Claims TriblLn:rl-cum- XXVI Adclitional Chief ,lr r tge, City Civil Cour t, Hv<lcr:rbad. enhancing the comllil r sation from Rs.4.73,2OO/ lo 8,21,516/ and the cnharir r <'. irmount of compensalion sliall carry interest @ 7.5% per altnL l r fron the <l:lte of claim pe Lilion till realization. Horvever, thc inLclc : t fol the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are di - ctecl to deposit Lhc compcnsalion amount with accrued rnterest ,.i i hiin a period of L$,o rnonLhs liom tlie date of recejpt o[ a copy ,l rhis Judgment :rftcr deducling the arnount if any already depo:; rrd- On such cleposit, the appellant is entitled to rvithdrar.r. lrr r said amount u'ithout furnishir-rg any securiq,. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in th s appeal, shall //TRUE COPY// SD/- M / I] IPUTY -t-\ OHD.ISMAIL REGISTRAR stCTION OFFICER To, I The Motor Accident CIaims Tribunal _ Cum-XXVI Adc Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 7lo ,, z. One CC to SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. AVKS PRASAD, Advocate IOPUC] 4 Two CD Copies. GE CP HIGH COURT DATED:01i08/2025 \ JUDGMENT MACMA.No.359 ot 2021 D r'id c ( \ C ) '?ro'\l !l C) 5 * rs5p.plcrf! I I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS rtlk',"(

0..,r\.' l I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 359 OF 2021 Between: Smt. T. Mariyamma, Wo T. Mathyas Reddy Aged. 33 years, Occ. Presently Nil (Previously working as LabouQ R/o H. No. 1-912, Mariyapuram Village Shabad Mandal, Range Reddy District. ...PETITIONER AND

1. Syed lbrahim and another, S/o Syed Meera Sahib Aged. Major, Occ. Owner of car bearing no. AP 09 AF 4532, R/o. 72-88, LBT Nagar, Patigadda Colony. Secunderabad.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional Manager, T.P. Claim Hub, Snehalatha Complex Green Lands, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the order and decree dated 05/01/2021 passed in MVOP No. 910 of 2014 on the file of the court of the lVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum-XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 argument of SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.'1 , and SRl, AVKS PRASAD appeared forthe Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That the compensation enhanced from Rs.4,73,2001 to Rs.8,21,5161 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 .Sok per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. -*7

3. That the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeit: j 4. fhat the Respondents are directed to deposit the comc accrued interest within a period of two months from th copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if anv ;nsation amount with : date of receipt of a rlready deposited. 5 o That the Appellant on such deposit by Respondents, tr I appellant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furr ;hing any security. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL t, :PUTY REGISTRAR Itf rue Copyll .\ To 1 The Motor Accident craims Tribunar - cum-XXVr Addr. ( hief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad )Ecrrou oFFrcER

2. Two CD Copies GE CHL HIGH COURT DATED:01/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.359 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSI S S**