The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The appellant/ claimant filed lhe present appe. iagainst the order passed b}, thc Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-: lm VII Additional District Judge, N1iryalguda, (hercrnafter referred to 'lr rrned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.62 oi 2014, dated 29.O6.2019, whereirr c aimant/ petjtioner had filed the <'lairn petition trnder Section 166 ; M.V.Act seeking compensation o1' Rs.6,00,O00i lor the injuries rr, eivccl in a motor vehicle accidcnt that took place on 17 .11 .2OlO

2. The brief facts of the case are that appel rnt/claimzrlt f-rled M.V.O.P.No.62 of 20 14 under Section 166 of the M.\'Act, l9B8 seeking compensation tbr the injuries received in a motr r vehicle accident aJleged to have caused dr-re to rash and negligent rrir rner by the driver of the lorry. h is contended that on 17. I 1.2010, the 6 etitioner nho was a cleaner to the lorry u,as sitting in the cabin ar r I when the lorrl reached the outskirts of Dubba Thanda Matoor Villi ge, the petitioner tried to push the electrical w,ires coming across the I _ -ry, with the help of a stick and then, the driver of the lorry drove the orry in rash and negligent manner as a result he slipped and fell dou.r lrom the cabin of 2 IVNR,J M. A.C.M.A. No. 55 1 of 2o2O the lorry and the tyres of the lorry ran over right leg of the petitioner, as a result petitioner sustained fractures and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Durga Shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda where the petitioner underwent surgery and u,as rn patient for tu.entv days. The Police registered a case in Crime No.133 of 2O10 against the driver of offending vehicie for the punishable offence under Section 338 of tPC.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained gnevous injuries and the petitioner has undergone treatment for a period of 2O days and also conducted operation to the right thigh and steal rod has been inserted ald thereafter rod was removed from the body ol the petitioner. The petitioner u'as completely bed ridden lor sur months and also incurred huge expenditure in the hospital and due to accident, the petitioner is unabie to walk freely either on road or on ladder and the petitioner is unable to lift heavy articles. As a result petitioners iost his cleaner job. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.6,00,O0O/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 - United India lr-rsurance Company Limited, 3 ,v]IR,J M.A.C. .A. No.551 oI 2O2o hled a counter-affidavit, denying atl the avermen t j made in the claim petition. inclr,rding the manner in rvhich the accrc ( nt rook place, age. avocation and income of the petitioner and submitr r d that tlre clriver ol the offending Lorn- rvas not holding valid driving lir:nce at the time of accident and further contended that the comp(, rsation r'laimed rs excessive and pral'ed to dismiss the claim petition

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments r ade b_v both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the followinrl issues u,hich read as under i) Whether tle petitioner sustoined tnjuies due to neq i ,erlt dit,ing of Lorrg No.ABK 3606 on 17.11-2010? it) Whether tlrc petitloner is entitled for compensation? )r so, to Luhat is quantum aml fron u.thom? LUI ) o LUnAt rL llel .'

6. During the course of trial, PWs.1 & 2 were exz nined and marked Exs.A I to Ex.A 12 on behalf of petitioner. None exar Lined on behaif of respondents but trx.B 1-lnsurance copy was marked

7. After perusing the oral and documentaqr evide r ce and going into the entire record piaced by both the parties, thr learned Tribunal dismisse$ the claim petition. \ 4 l\Ilfi,J M.A.C.M.A. tto. 55 7 of 2O2O B. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is hled on the ground that the learned Tribunal did not consider the evidence in the proper way and contencled that at the time of accident the petitioner was standing near the lorry and rr.,as lifting thc electric wires with the help of wooden stick ar;d then, the driver drove the lorry in negligent manner thereby the petitioner fell under the tyres

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to the occurrence of the accident, the petitioner u,as hale ad healthy agcd about 24 years, and used to do lorry cleaner u'ork and earn Rs.10,000/ per nonth and contribute the same for the welfare of his family. Due to the accident petitioner has sustained grievous injuries a-ll over the bodv i.e., fracture injuries to right thigh and right loot and serious injuries to both hands, face and chest and was shifted to Durga Shankar Hospital. Miryalaguda, where petitioner undergone treatment for a period ol 20 days as inpatient ald the hospital also conducted operation petitioner's right leg and implants (rod) has been inserted, lor which petitioner have spent Rs.6 1 ,557 I - for the treatment. The said implant (rod) \t7as removed from the petitioner's right 1eg and the surgery costed around Rs.30,0OO/- A NNR,J M.A.C.M.A. No.5s 1 oI 2O2O

10. Learne d c:or-rnsel for the petitioner furthc contended th:rt thereafter, Medical Board, Nalgonda issued disabilit r certihcate to the petitioner shor.vinil .109; disability, the disabilitv cer ficate u,as markerI as Ex.A7. The Tribunal held that there is evidence )n recorci to shon, that the petitioncr is suffering 40% disability due sequelac at right knee rt'ith restrictcd movement at knee joint, bur not ar,i,arded just compensation to thc petitioner and dismissed the clr im petiti()n. Henc(l prayed this Courl to allow the appeal and set aside tl e order passed th<: Tribun al 1 1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 j lbmits that aftcr considering the entire evidence available on r( ( ord, the learnecl Tribunal has rightly' dismissed the claim petitior which needs rrcr interference 1,2. Heard, Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Satish Red.dg, learned counsel br the respondent No.2. None appeared for respondent No.2. Peruse r the material on record.

13. The points which arose for consideration befor: this Court in this appeal are that ) 6 IINR,J M. A.C.M-A.Ito. 55 1 of 2O2O L) Whether the Tribunal had ighttg consider the cloimant petition ftled under Section 1 66 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 19gg ancl disrnlssed the cLaim petition? ii) Wltether the petitioner is entitted for compensatiort, U' so, to Luhof extent? Point No.1 & 2:

14. Admittediy, on 17.1 1.2010, the petitioner was standing on tl-re door of the lorry and was lifting the wires *.ith the help o[ sticks and while he rvas lifting suddenly the driver of the lorry moved the vehiclc ir-r rash and negligent manner thereby the petitioner fell dou,n and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all ovcr the body and he .,r.as admitted in Durga shankar Hospital, Miryalaguda for the treatment of r) Crush Injury on right thigh, ii) Ar,.ulment Skin Flap of righr thigh iii) Fracture of funeral candle iv) Fracture Patella lateral and the petitioncr underu,ent surgery and was inpatient for 20 days i.e., from 17 .11.2020 to 06.12.2OIO. PW.2 Dr.I.Kameshwar deposed that petitioner was brought to the hospital on 17. ll.2O2O and upon examination, he s.as sustained crush injury on right thigh, avulsion skin flap 30 x B x 1/2cm right thigh laterial aspect, fracture femoral condyle lateral and fracture patella lateral aspect right. After the treatment for about three weeks, the petitioner was discharged on 06.l2.2OtO with an advice to take bed rest for six morr.ttrs and Ex.A2-Medial Certificate, ExA8-Medical bills, r. ,..l 7 Ar\R,J M.A.C.M.A. No.551 o! 2O2O Ex.A9-Discharge Summary Ex.A10-Medical Pres :riptions trx.Al l - Pharmacy bills u,as issued b1.PW2 and further subni:red that petitioner u,as suffering fro n'r l<nee stiffness and contractiorr. r'hich is temporary i and after physiotherapy it may diminish gradualLr. however with the said ctisabilitv, the petitioner cannot lift heavy weig- ts and cannot run as ordinary person

15. The Medical Board, Nalgonda examined the pe -itior-rer and found that he rt,as suffering from lOok permanent disabilit. Cue to sequelae al nght knee u,ith restricted rnovement at knee joint ar-r I that the petitioner cannot u,ork as previouslv clue to the injury and issr.r c1 Ex.A7 Disabilitv certificate. Howevcr, on keen perusal of the Ex.A7. i is found that the Medical Board has given the disability certificate u.itlr regard to the limb and not to the rvhole body and in the cross exarr ination, the PW.2 stated that limb constitute 30% of the body

16. The Medical Board, Nalgonda has mentioned rle disability of the petitioner Qil 4O7,,, lor the limb and not for whole bo: r. In similar case, i.e., Raj Kumar u, Ajag Kumarr, the Honble Suprer re Court held that the Tribunal must distinguish between permaner t and fi.rnctional disability. Even if a doctor certifies 45% disabilitl , the courts shali ' lzor r; r sccb+: \ 1 B AIIIR,J M.A.C.M.A. No-551 of 2O2O i:: reduce if the person carr still perform gainful work. The relevant paragraph is extracted lor ready reference hereunder: 'I'hc Trihunul has proceeded on the bo.\i.\ that the permanent disabili1 ol thc ittjured-claitnunl va.; J5o.4 and tht losr ,tl his future carning eupacitt' rla.r rr1.so 15'%. 'l'htt l'r'ibunal oterlooked tha.lbct rhat lhe disuhilitl, certif;cetc reft,trt'l to 15'% di.rubilin, ttith referenca to left lovcr limb and not in ragard to tfu anlire hody. T'hc soid extent of permancnt disnbility of the litth could not he consitlart'l to hc the futtctional disuhility oJ tha body nor could it be assumed lo re.sult in a tctrrespontling extent of loss ofcurning copacity, ds the disobilih, vvould trtt lutve ltrct,cnted him fronr turn,ing on hi.; avocution as a chee.se vendor. though it nitht irttpccle irt ltis smooth .functioning. Nornall.1,. the ahscnce of cleur and -sullit iL,nt avidence rould have necessilated remand ol the case .for further evidence ott this o;pecl. [[on,crcr, in.stcad of remanding thc nutlerfor a.findingon this issltc. dt ll'tis di.ylance of'lime afler nearly tto decades, on the facls and circumstantas. to do complelc lu.ttice, y,e propose to a.rsess //ir, pcrmanent .functional disobilin o/ the body as 25'% and the lo"-s ofJuturc earning cupacily as 2002. "

17. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's crrse (cited abooe), this Court is inclined to take the disabilitr of the petitioner @ 2OoA for calculating loss of futr.rre earning on account of disability. [n view of the above observation, it cal be safely conduced that accident occurred due to the fall of the petitioner from the lorry during the course of employment hence, this Point No. I is answer in favour of appellant and against respondents. Accordingly, the pelitioner is entitled for just compensation. ./, 9 NNR,J M.A.C.M A. No.5s 1 of 2O2O

18. Admittedly, the petitioner \\/as i\rorking as 'cle ner the petitioner could not produccd the Income certificate to subst:L rtiate his claim. ln tl-ris rcgard, it is irnperativc to look into the settled lr r laid dorvn by the Hon'ble Supremc Court in Latha Wadhwa us. S1r te oJ Bihalz held that cven u.hen there is no proof ol income a.nd eir nings, the income can be reasonablv cstimated arrd assessed regarding he grouncl realities by the Courts. In the prcsent fact and circumstan' s of the case and considering the judgment passed by the Hon'1 lr Apex Court in Ramqchandrappa Vs. Rogal Sundoram Alliance I tsurance Co.Ltd3 u,herein, the incorne of the deceased therein \\,as r (en as Rs.4,500/ per month, therefore this Court is inclined to take rl e monthly income of a petitioner as Rs.4,5O0/- per month.

19. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme (l >urt in No:tional Insurq.nce Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and. others+ and considering the age of the petitioner as 24 years whi,' r is not dispute b1, either of the parties, additional 40ok of the incom,- has to be added torvards future prospects to the ntonthlf incomc of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to '? zoor 1e1 scc t oz 3 r lzorr; t3 scc 236 4 2017 ACJ 270A I ) 10 rv lR,J M.A.C.M. A. No. 55 I oJ 2O2O Rs.6,300/- 1Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.75,600/ (Rs.6,300/- X 121. Thus the loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 20'lo rvould come to Rs. 15, I2O (75.600 x 2o'kl

20. As per column No.4 of schedule hxed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlcr Verma a. Delhi Transport Corporations , and considering the age of the petitioner as 24 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner age group between 21-25 years rs '18'. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.2,72,1601' (15,120 x 18).

21. This petitioner has incurred Rs.61,557/- towards medical bills and this Qourt is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.61,560/- under the head of 'medical bills' tou,ards medical expenses. PW2 has suggested in the cross examination tl-rat Six Month rest was advised to the petitioner, hence, this Court is inclined to grant six months rnonthly income to the petitioner i.e., Rs.27,000/- (Rs.a,500 x 6) towards 'loss of earnings'

22. This Court is also inclined to grant compensation under conventional heads of Rs.25,000/- towards 'future treatment'; Rs.25,00O/- towards 'pain and sufferance'; Rs.1O,000/- towards 'extra ' 2oo9 Ao i298 (sc) I I I I I i 11 ]Ylw,./ M.A.C,M.A. No.55 t oJ 202A nouishment', Rs.5,000/- towards ,transporta, tn charges, and Rs. 5,000 / - toward s 'damages to clothes'

23. On or.erall re-appreciation of tl're pleadings, m t:rierl on record ancl the Ia*' Iaid dorvr-r b1 the Hon'ble Supreme court i ihe aforesaid cited decision. This court is of the opinion that the petitio. --r is entitled to just and lair compenszrtio, ancl calculated as above arr given irr the table belorr for easy referenc.e. Head Amount arrived at by tl,i ; Court Loss of future carnrng on account of disabr lit Six Month carning Medical Bilts Fu Lurc trea t menL Pain and sufferancc Extra Nouri\hmen L TransportaLiou Charges Damage to Clothes Total Rs 2,72. l60,i Rs.27,O0O/ Rs.6 i,560/ Rs.25,O0O/ Rs. IO,O0O/ Rs 5,000/ Rs.5,0OO/ Rs.5,O00/- Rs .4 ,tO ,72O / - -l I

24. Accordingly for the reasons stared above, the I,, int Nos.l & 2 are arswered in favour of petitioner/claimant against respondents. The appeal is partly allorved and the order, dated 29.06.2( 19, passed by the Motor Accident claim Tribunal-cum-vII Additiorrrr District Judge, Mir,yalgr-tda, (hereinafter referred to .learned Tribunal ) in M.V.O.p.No.62 t1 i i i t2 J\lte,J t.A.c.M.A. tto. 55 I oJ 2o2O of 2014, is liable to be and accordingly set aside and the claim petition is partly allowed.

25. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled lor an compensation of Rs.4,LO,72Ol- (Rupees Four Lakh Ten ThouscLnd ancT Seven Hundred Tuentg Rupees onlgi with interest at the rate of 7 .5k p.a. on the compensation amount lrom the date of petition till the date ol realization. The respondent No.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest, within three months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdrau, the samc u,ithout furnishing any surety. There shali be no order as to costs.

26. N4iscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shal1 stand closed. SD/- M. JAWAHAR REDDY A lsrANT REGISTRAR "/ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-Cum-VlllAdditionalDistrictJudge, tvlirvalaouda. ilii6 C?i" s.t ANNAPURNA SREERAM, Advocate [oPUc] One CC to SRI M.SATISH REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 1 2 3 Two CD CoPies W.o NVB HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.SS1 ot 2020 /,' fE J IA rc t! t"II , t' 3 u lN ?o?6 7 I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITI IOUT COSTS /: (b,nt \ \ r Y,/ I ) i i i I l l I I [3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 551 OF 2020 Between: Uppari Yadaiah, S/o. Muthaiah, Age. 30 years, Occ. Agricultural Coolie, R/o Kothapally Village, Anumula Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

3. K. Ramu, S/o. Kistaiah, Age. Major, Occ. Business, R/o. Near Ramalayam, Nidamanoor Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District.

4. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Ahoknagar Branch, Miryalaguda Town and Mandal, Nalgonda District represented by its Branch. Appea filed Under Section 173 of Motor decree'in M.V.O.P No.62 of 2014 dated.29l16t2o1g on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Clarms Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Miryalaguda. ";:::::;,::T: :::: This appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Smt Annapuran Sreeram, Advocate Appellant and Sri M.Sathish Reddy, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for the respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat be and hereby is partly allowed and order dated 29.06.201g, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-Vll additional District Judge, Miyalaguda (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribuanal') in M.V.O.P.No.62 of 2014 is liable to be and accordingly set aside and the claim petition.

2. That the petitioner is be and hereby is entitled for an compensation of Rs.4,10,720l- (Rupees Four Lakh Ten thousand and Seven Hundred Twenty Rupees only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o p.3 on the compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of reahzat )n.

3. That the respondent No 1 & 2 are directed to deposit v ithin three months from receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

4. That on such deposit, the Petitioner is be and heret \ is enti ed to withdrau,, the same without furnishing any surety.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Cou 1 shall stands confirmed in all other respects. and

6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. ASI n . JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR t -----7 :\ CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Adc i onal District Judge, M iryalaguda. 2. Two CD Copies NVB W HIGH COURT DATED:1510912025 DECREE MACMA.No.SS1 o12020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITI. OUT COSTS b