The High Court · 2025

1988 (for short, 'the Act') by the appellantlpetitioner aggrieved by the Order and d.ecree dated 31.12.2O19 passed in M.V.O.P.No.269 of 2O13 by ,-he learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additj.onal District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The l>rief facts of the case are that the appellant has filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,0O,OO0/- from the respondenr:s for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. tt is stated that on 13.11.2O11, the appellant along with other pas:;enger was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-2S-X- O2l3 tow:rrds Kalyapur Village from Navipet. When the auto reached n,3ar Ashoknagar, the driver of the aforesaid auto and the driver of another auto bearing No.AP-25-V-5551, which was proceedin;g in the opposite direction, drove their respective autos in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against each other. As a result of the impact, the auto overturned, due to which tht: appellant sustained fracture of right femur, injuries to scalp, hands, head and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Flospital, Nizamabad where the petitioner was ':4 \ \. 2 treated as an inpatient from 13.11.2011 . to 2s.ll.2olr and underwent an operation wherein a steel rod was inserted. Even after being discharged, the petitioner continued receiving medical care in private hospitals and incurred huge medical expenses torvards medicines and extra nourishment. Based on a complaint, the Police, Navipet Police station, Nizamabad District registered a case in Crime No.285 of 2o11 under Section 33T oflpC against the driver of crime vehicle and after thorough investigation filed charge Sheet.

3. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the appellant/petitioner was aged about 41 years and was engaged in agriculture and labour work and used to earn more than Rs.10,00o /- per month. However, due to the said accident, the appellant/petitioner lost his earning capacity and sustained permane.rt disability. It further stated that the appellant/petitioner had also spent more than Rs.2,50,00o/- for treatment and medical expenses and spent huge amount for transportation and other expenses including extra nourishment pain and sufferings and for follow-up treatments in private hospitals.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3 were set ex parte. Respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Company (i.e., insurer of respondent No.1 Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-2S- X-O213) filed counter denying the oge, income and avocation, J earning cap€rcity of the appellant and averments of the claim petition and contended that the alleged accident had not. occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the insured/ crinte vehicle.

5. It is further contended that the true cause of accident was due to the n,:gligent and recklessness driving by the driver of crime vehicle (i.e., Auto Rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-U-5551). However, they contenrled that the appellant colluding with the police, falsely implicated the Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-X-0213 for wrongful gain. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5.1 Respondent No.4-Shriram General Insurance Company (i.e., insurer of respondent No.3 Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-2S-V- 5551) Iiled counter denying the age, income and avocation, earning capacity of appellant/petitioner, involvement of crime vehicle and averments of the claim petition and contended that the crime vehicle was; never insured and no policy uide cover note No.948842 (valid frorn O4.O2.2Oll to O3.O2.2O12) was issued in favour of respondenI No.3 and called for strict proof of the same. It is further contended that compensation claimed is excessive, exorbitant and prayed to rlismiss the claim petition.

6. On l.he basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: 'i \ I \ .14d *^* ? ( 4 1) wlwther the accident has takeru place due to rash and" 2e_gligefi driuing of both auto ricrcshauts bearing No.Ap- 25-X-0213 and auto rickslww beariig No. AP-25-V-5551 by its d".riuers? 2) Whether the petitioner in O.p No.269 of 2013 is entitled to clai.m conlpensation, if so, to what imount and from which of the respond"ents? 3) To what relieft 4) whether th-e auto riclcsrtaw bearing No.Ap-2s-v-sss1 was not inuolued in the accidertt on 13.1 1.2O1 1? 7 - During trial, on behalf of the petitioner, he himself examined as P.w- 1 and also exarnined p.w-2 and p.w-3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-18. on behalf of respondent No.2, R.w-1 ,uvas examined and Ex.B- 1 was marked. on behalf of the respondent No.4, R.w-2 was e;<amined and no documentary evidence was adduced. t. on perusal of the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by drivers of both crime vehicles (i.e., auto rickshaw bearing Nos.Ap-25-v-s551 and Ap-2s-x-o2r3) and awarded total compensation of Rs.7,59,56g/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of cleposit, to be paid by respondent Nos. 2 and, 4, i.e., soo/o each of the total compensation amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. ,h 5

9. Heard Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, iearned counsel appearing for the appellant and despite affording sufficient opportunities, there was no representation on behalf of the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4-lnsurance Companies. Hence, the learned Standing Cr>unsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4 is deemed as heard and peruserl the record.

10. The core contention of the learned counsel lor the appellant is that th,rugh the appellant adduced evidence, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded paltry sum towards compensation. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner suffered multiple frrrcture injuries and was admitted in the hospital and had underwent surgery. It was further contended that the Tribunal has not <:onsidered the loss of earning during the period he underwenr: treatment, disability suffered and the period of bed rest thereafter. Further, it was contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded 'future prospects' by considering the disability suffered and ought to have also awarded just and reasonable compense.tion. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to allow the Appeal. 1 1. Now the point for consideration is "V'fhether the impugned order and decree passed by the leerned Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If s(), whet?rcr the appellant is entitled fo, anA athancement of the compensation?" 1 l )' l l : 6

12. It is pertinent to note that there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident occurred and the injuries sustained by the appellant. The Tribu,ar by rerying on the oral evidence of p.w- 1 coupred rvith the documentary evidence under Ex'A-1 (FIR), Ex.A-2 (charge sheer) and Ex.A-3 (certified copy of Medical certificate) has concluded thatl the above accident occurred clue to rash and negligent driving of both crime vehicles and answered the same in favour of the appellant.

13. Though, it is an admitted fact that the appelrant has not placed any evidence on record to establish that the apperlant was earning Rs.l0,00o /- per month by doing agricurture and other labour works, the Tribunal fixed the notional income as Rs.S,oo0/_ per month.

13.1 The Motor Vehicles Act is beneficial/social welfare legislation; its primary objective is to provide relief to accident victims and their families, without entanglement in procedural technicalities. As such, requiring a daily wage earner like the petitioner, who is a farmer to produce income proof/certificate would be unrealistic and would defeat the very purpose of the beneficial legislation. The cornerstone of the I\{otor vehicles Act is the principle of just compensation which means the compensation should be fair, reasonable and equitable 14- In the absence of any definite proof of income, the notional income of the appellant could be taken for computing the loss of o 7 earnings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sged Sadiq and others a. Diuisional Manager, United India Insurance Compang Llmitedl, .ras held that in the absence of any specific evidence to prove the income of a deceased or injured, notional income could be taken as the basis for calculating the compensation. Accordingl'y, by considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7,O00/- per month and thus, the annual income of the appellzrnt comes to Rs.84,000/- (Rs.700O /- x L2l.

15. Further, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects considering the permanent disablement of the appellant and the nature of injuries sustained. In this regard, reliance can be .placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kavito. Nagar and others u. Tha Oriental Insurance Compang Litnited2, wherein it is observed that: "14. The need to factor in furure prospects when determining compensation becomes euen clearer and more pressing uthen considering tlrc bastc human driue to sustain and inproue one's lik. A self-emploged indiuidual, just tike s;omeone on a ftxed salary, striues to increase their income to rneet grouing expenses and to adapt to changing <:ircumstances. Thi"s is particularlg important when <:onsidering the purchastng power and qualitA of hfe, wLtich tend to increase as a person's career progresses. The notion ' lzor+1 2 scc 7J5 2 Supreme Cou,t SLP(C) No 1564 3/2016 d^ted 18.09.2024. d- 8 that a self emploged person's income will remain sfaffc fs flanaed, as theg, too, make effofts to raise th.eir fees or charges to keep pace taith inflation and. market d.emand.s. For instance, someone working in a gouemmeni role or another fixed-tncome job might receiue annual salary adjustmenfs or benefits, reflecting a grotuth trajectory ouer time. Stmtlarlg, a. selJ'-emploged. profe.ssiona/_su ch as a doctor, lawger, or small business owner wilt ofiert increase fees or expand seruices to keep pace u.tith ising cosfs. Recognizing these future prospects ensures ct fair and just compensation bg arigning with rear-worrd. economic dynamics, uthich section 168 of the Motor vehicles Act, rggg seeks to uphold. "

15. Thb driue to improue one's income is uniuersar, regardress of the emprogment srafus, and. should be reflected in the compensation calculations .for motor accid.ent claims. As the precedent h the quoted jud"gment suggests, it b unjust to disregard future prospects sorerg based. on the perceiued static nafure of the income. Instead, a d.egree-test should. be applied., accounting for factors like age, career growth, and economic conditions, ensuring fair compensation that reflects the indiuidua|s true eaming potentiar oltertime.,, ln the present case, the Tribunal failed to consider future prospects to the income of the appellant in terms of the decision laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in National rnstrqnce compang Limited a. pranag sethi and. other* and the observation made in Kaaito. alaglcrrs case (supra 2). In this regard, this court is inclined to award ,future prospects' to the appellant. Accordingly, 2syo of future prospects on the income of the appellant is added by considering the fact that the appellant ' 20t7 ncJ 2zoo 9 was self-errrployed and was aged 4O years at the time of accident. Therefore, the annual income of the appellant comes to Rs. 1,05,0OO I - [Rs.84,00O I - * Rs.2 1,0O0/-1.

16. As pt:r the pleadings of the appellant and evidence of P.W-2 (i.e., docto:: who treated the appellant) before the Tribunal, it is evident that the appellant sustained lacerated wound over right knee measuring20 x 10 cms and corresponding X-ray films shows fracture of lateral femoral condyle. Further, Ex.A- I I (original disability r:ertificate) prima facie establishes that the appellant's right lower limb was impaired (i.e., Post Traumatic Sequel-Limbs) and has cerused functional disability of 7Oo/o, which is permanent in nature. It is to be noted that the Tribunal by applying the multiplier '15' for the age of the appellant and by considering Ex.A- i 1-Disability Certificate, has rightly fixed the functional disAbility rf tire appellant at 7Oo/o thus, rendering the appellant is eligible to a sum of Rs.ll,O2,5OOl- [Rs.1,O5,00O/- x L5 x 7Oo/ol towards p 3rmanent disability.

17. In regard to the quantum of compensation, it is evident from the recorrl that the appellant was admitted in the hospital from

13.i1.2O11 to 25.11.2011 and again on 23.O1.2012 as inpatient and discharged on 27.01.2012; wherein he had to undergo multiple operations for inserting rods and knee replacement operations; the appellant was also admitted in private hospital from 05.O4.2012 to 18.04.2012 for follow up treatments etc. In \ \ (> t0 this regard, this court is of the considered opinion that at least four months time would be a reasonable period to compute for loss of earnings. Thus, consicering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7,oool- and the time period of four months for recovery loss of earnings, it is computed at Rs.2g,00o/ - (Rs.7,000 x 4 months).

18. Further, as the Tribunar failed to award compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life and upon suffering the permanent disability, this court is of the consiclered opinion that a sum of Rs.5o,00o l- be awarded towards loss of amenities, which appears to be just and reasonable.

19. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal did not properly consider the evidence of p.w-2, (orthopedic surgeon) who has deposed that the appellant requires total joint knee replacement and a cost of Rs.2,5o,o00/- would be required for future treatment during the trial; in respect of which nothing contra was elicited to discredit his testimony by the respondents. The Tribunal has awardecl a slrm of Rs.3o,ooo/- under the head of future medical expenses, which appears to be meager. Thus, considering the above aspect, this court is of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs. 1,oo,0oo / - to be granted towards future medical expenses which appears to be just and reasonable.

20. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3o,oo0/-towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs.6,s68/- under the head of medical 1l expenses; a sum of Rs.S,OOO I - under the head of transportation charges; and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. The same appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court. 2I. It is to be seen that out of the initially awarded compensation t \ of Rs.7,59,568f -, the Tribunal permitted the appellant to withdraw an amount of Rs.2,59,5681- with costs and interest accrued thereon and directed the remaining amount of Rs.5,00,00O/- be kept in fiured deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of three years. It is pertinent to note that by this day, the time frame of three yea.:s fixed by the Tribunal with regard to the deposit part of compens€ttion amount in any nationalized bank has expired.

22. In rris',^/ of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the consilered view that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of aforesaid observations.

23. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.7,59,568/- to Rs.l3,32,06Sl -- which sh.all carry interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of filing of the p,:tition till the date of realization payabre by respondent Nos.2 an.d 4. The respondent Nos.2 and 4 are directed to deposit the com'rensation amount within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any t2 security, subject to payment of deficit court-fee on the enhanced compensation, which is beyond the amount claimed by the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed a SD/.AHSGOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G 3 / /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Nizamabad.(with records if any)

1. T.he Chairrygn, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Addl. District Judge), at 2. One CC to SRl. KULDEEP JADHAVAdvocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Advbcate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSLw t t HIGH COURT DATED:21 11112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.241 of 2020 E tt$ l$tt o() rT * i ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS C .4KtA ft. I i j I i ; , 'l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3484 I FRIDAY,THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN MOTOR ACCIDE ctvrL M ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 241 OF 2020 Between Jarpala Pool Singh, S/9. Jarpala Boop Singh, Aged about 48 years, Occ Agriculture La bo u r, R/o. H . No. 4-4, Ku nepa I ly rha nd a, Renj al u, nd, I, N.,=ffiotiiir^!+lF:,iti one r AND 1 Dagula Ashok, S/o.Bhumaiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of Auto Richshaw Bearing No. AP 25 XO213,Rl/o. H.No.B-17l5, Renjal Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. 2 3 The Reliance General lnsurance,Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Bqancft Office, Balaji Bhavan, D.No.1 -1320,2nd Flobr, Vinayaknagar, Nizamabad. Sarla Pedda Rajaiah, S/o. Pochaiah, Aged Major, Occ Owner of Auto Rickshaw Begring No. AP 25 V 5551, R/o.H.No.2-27, Sadashivnagar village and Mandal, Nizamabad District.

4. Shriram General [nsgqq4c5r Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, E-8, EPIP RllCO, Sitapur, Jaipur, Rajasthan State. ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.12.2019 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 269 of 2013 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Addl. District Judge), at Nizamabad. 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 SRl. KULDEEP JADHAV, Advocate for the appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.1 to 3 and SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.4. 7 This Court dottr Order and Decree as follows: alk>wed;

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is 2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,59,S68/- to Rs.13,32,068/- which shall carry inteiest @ 9% per annum from the date of. filing o_f the petition till the date of reaiization payable by rer;pondent No.2 and 4; 3. That the respondent Nos.2 and 4 be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment; 4. That on such deposit by the Respondent Nos.2 and 4, the appellant is hereby entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any'security, st1!j9ct to payment of deficit court-fee on the enhancediom-pensation, which.is beyond the amount claimed by the appellant; and

5. Tl"at there shall be no order as to costi in thid bppeal. SD/.AHSGOWRISHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G: SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To,

1. T.he Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Addl. District Judge), at Nizamabad 2. Two CD Copies GE/PSL YY HIGH COURT DATED:2111112O2s DECREE MACMA.No.241 ot 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS L^,pR(d" Xv