The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This ap1;eal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 09.01 .2020 in lV V.O.P No 3096 of 2014 passed by the Chairnran, l/lotor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Adciitional Chr,:f Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the TribLrilal") .

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they r,vere ai'rayed before the Tribunal.

3. fhe case of tlre petitioner before the Tribunal was that on 17 102014 at about B:30 hours, the petitioner r,aras going as a pillion ricJer on a inotor bike bearing No.AP-22-N-6442 from Ganrparrnapally Village towards Achanrpet and when they reached Uppupandu agricultural lands of Gampanapally Village, the auto bearing No.AF'-22-Y-8028 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manler at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and ciashed against the motor bike, as a result the petitioner and the rider fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries. lmmediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Achampet and he underwent inpaiient treatnrent from 18.10.20141o 24.10.20.14. l.le incurred huge l 2 ETD,] MACMA No.269 2021 expenditure and further has lost his earnings. He therefore, sought a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that the driver of the auto did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- "1. 2) 3) Whether the accident took place due to tlte rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP-22-Y-8028 causing injuries to petitioner? Whether the petitoner is entitled for compensation. lf so, to what extent and from whom2 To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, petitioner got examined PWs '1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.Bl was marked B. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.3,89,433/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the 3 ETD,I MACMA No.269 2021 present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of com pen sation L Hearci the submissions of Sri P. Chandra [Vlouli, learned cor:nsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for re spondent No.2

10. Learnecl counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner ts il rickshaw puller and that due to the accident, he suflered 57% disability to his leg, due to which he is not able to eke o'rt his livelihcod by pulling the rickshaw. He therefore, sustained 100% loss in his earning capacity and thus, prayed to consider the same ancl award loss of future earnings. He further argued that the tribunal has considered the incorne of the petitioner to be very low as Rs.3,0001 per month, and has prayed to'take atleast Rs.4,500/- per month to be the income of the petitioner in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court. 11 Learnecl counsel for the respondent has submitted that the rider of the auto did not have driving license and that their company is not liable tl pay any compensation. He further argued that the petitioner has not flled any proof of income. Therefore, the tribunal has rightly ass;essed the compensation and, also that the rider of the 4 EI D,J MACMA No.269 2021 motor bike was attending to his phone call at the time of accident, thus, contributory negligence may be attributed to the rider of the motor bike. He therefore, submitted that the compensation granted by the tribunal itself is high and that there is no need to award any further enhancement of compensation.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 3 Whether the claimant B entitled to enhancenent ol compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tribunal need any interference ? To what relief ?

13. Point No.1: a) The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. lt is his case that he lost his total earning capacity due to 57% disability towards his leg and that he is not able to eke out his livelihood by pulling rickshaw b) The petitioner suffered grievous injuries in the accident. ln support of his case, he got examined the doctors who treated him c) PW2/Dr.C.Shiv Kumar who is a Civil Assistant Surgeon Ortho in CHC, Mydukur, Kadapa and he is the Doctor of District i\/edical Board and along with Board members. he has examined the .qlfFt11q.!4'Cryer?gr . .-..., { -ar- 5 ETD,] MACMA No.269 20r1 petitioner anc issued the disability ce(ifrcate, which shows that 57% disabililv is rsLrstained by the petitioner, due to the injuries suffered in the accident. lt is further elicited from him that the disability is in his right lower lirrb impaired reach due to post traumatic sequel limbs. ln his cross examination, he admitted that it is a iomputer generated docurnent, ar d that after examining any patient, they will feed the data into the s;ystenr and thus, the system generates the certificate. d) P\\/3/D'l\l Jalapathi Reddy is a Consultant Surgeon in Ozone tlospital Kothapet. His evidence reveals that the petrtioner got adrnitted into their hospital on 17.10.2014 for treatment of "Communited Supra Condylar. fracture with intra arliculai extension of right femur'' and that he was.treated for the said injury in their hospital by performing a surgery on 21 .10.2014 and that he was disclrarged crt24.10.2014. lt is further elicited from him that Ex.A4 is issued by their hospital and that the medicines purchased at Sl.Nos.4 to 7 under Ex l\6 are as per his prescriptions and that Ex.A10 is ihe X-ray film issued by their hospital. Nothing material was elicited from his cross examination to discredit his evidence. Ex.A3/\/Vound Certificate issued by the Civil Assistant SUigeon, Achampet sh cws that he sustained fracture of right leg which is \ griqvous in nature. Ex.A4ldischarge summary of Ozone Hospital 1 ,.,--- 6 EI D,] MACMA N0..269 2021 reveals that he was admitted on 17.10.2014 and discharged on

24.10.2014. The medical bills filed under ExA5 show that the petitioner has incurred an expenditure of Rs.1 2,6331. ln support of the medical bills, prescriptions under Ex.A6 are filed. Ex.A7 is the disability certificate which shows 57ok of disability in his right lower limb due to post traumatic sequel limbs, and it is temporary disability He also filed .travelling bills issued by Hyderabad travels to an extent of Rs.16,000/-. Thus, the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the treatment underwent by him and the expenses incurred by him are proved by the evidence on record as discussed above. e) The petitioner is stated to be a rickshaw puller prior to the accident, no proof of income can be expected in this regard O ll .Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,5001 per month can be safely taken as the income. ln the present case, the deceased was a rickshaw puller as per the contention of the claim petitioner. Based on the evidence on record, on a reasonable hypothesis, the income of the petitioner is assessed aq Rs.4,500/- per month- IeoIl)t2scc236 1 EI D,, MACMA No.269 2021 .a S) Considering the nature of treatment underwent by him, it is opined that the petitioner must,have been out of work fo.r atlehst six ':... monthsr -fhere,fore, loss of earnings is awarded for a period of six morrths i.e., Rr;4,500 x 6 which comes up to Rs.27,000/- h) With regard to the pain and suffering, he suffered acute pain and suffering. .herefore an amount of Rs.50,000/- is awarded i) With regard to the other expenses, Rs.'10,0001 towards transportation, Rs, 1 0,000/- .towards attendant charges, Rs;,1 0i0001- towards extra- rourishment, Rs. 1 0,000/- towards incidental expenses and tts.12,6331 towards the medical expenses are awarded Therefore the :ompensation comes to Rs.52,633/- which is rounded upto Rs.52,7C,0i- that is awarded under the medical expenses, tra rrspoila tion. extra-nourish ment, incidental expenses and attendant charges j) The loss; of future earnings due to functional disability has to be awarded as; per the guidelines laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2 Ex.AC reveals the percentage of disability sustained by the petitioner lo be 57o/o, since he is a rickshaw puller, he must have suffered a lot to go back to his earlier avocation and it would be difficull for hinr to pull the rickshaw and earn his living, but Ex.A6 'zorr ir{l scrr::.r: 8 E'TD,] MACMA No.269 2021 reveals that it is a temporary disability. Though the petitioner cbunsel ': conten{gd;ihgt 100% functional disabiiity has to be awarded, this Court cannot accept the said contention. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the same S7o/o is assessed to be the loss of future earning capacity of the individual. Adding 25% towards the future prospects, the monthly income of the petitioner would be Rs.4,5001 + 1,125t- = Rs.5,625/- per month, loss of future earning capacity ie, Rs.5,625 x 12= 67,500 x 57o/o x 13 which comes up to Rs.5,00,'175l- k) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts 1 Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering

2. Loss of ea4ingg 3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 4. Compensation under the head of medical expenses, kanspbrt, i attendant charges, extra- : nourishment and other incidental I expenses Total , . , 50,000/- 27,AjU- 5,00,175t- 52,700t- 63A,775t- l) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entifled is calculated as Rs.6,30,775l- while the Tribunal has granted Rs 3,89,433/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entifled for \ "r..-_ffi.EFF-Er' -ar--a-r-ra-r I - ETD,] MACMA No.269*2021 //: enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly

14. Point Nio.2:- a) ln vlerry of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the order and dec;ree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to .,-, the quantum of compensation. This Court has renhariced::r the compensation to Rs. 6,30,7751- from that of Rs.3,89,433/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) -fhe Tribunal has granted rnterest at the rate of 9% on the quantum of r;ompensation and the conlention of the respondent counsel is tha I it rs too high c) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothe.is; a Coordinate 3ench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5yo per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Srrresh and Othersa and National lnsurance Company Limited ) I 2022 SCC ontinc ', S 606 " :ozi sic o,rtir". t s t09-; 10 I]TD,J MACMA No f,69 2021 Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Otherss; also interest @ 7.io/, per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation e) ln United lnsurance Company Limited yersus. Bottam Lin;gaiah9; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rale of interest to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till r.ealization. 0 A Division Bench of this High Court in National lnsurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish PrajapathiT; has granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. S) 'Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7 .5o/o on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5% Point No.2 is answered acCcirdinEly.. I \ \ '2021 scrcl onlinc fs I 170 6 202.1 SCC onlinc t'S 9l-5 7 2024 SCC Onlinc rs 2050 I .ne*.frryT"1!r -IITI- 11 ITD,] MACMA Nc.269 2021

15. Point No.3:- ln the rt:sult, IU A C M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, ntodifying tl-re Order and Decree dated Cg.01 .2020 in . lV V O P No.3)96 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Mo.tor Vehicle Accident Clairns Tribunal-curq-lx AdAitional Chief Judge, City bivit Cofurt. Hyderabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,89,433/- to Rs.6,30.7751. The rate of interest is reduced from 12o/o lo 7 Sok yter annum from the date of claim petition till realization The ciainrant:;hall pay the deficit Court fee. However, the interest for the period of delay is fodeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this:i Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said arnount without furnish ing any security. No costs. lVliscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in lhis appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, Chief Judge, '3ity Civil Court, Hyd-erab-a-d. 1 . The Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional 2 One CC t6 SRl.'PALLATI cHANDRAN4OULI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. HARINATH REDDY SOMA' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL l HIGH COURT DATED:14l0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.269 ot 2021 ).,. ,A. ./.1.\). N6 2:SIQ 't- PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS **q'%6o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVI L MISCELLANEOUS APPEA L NO: 269 OF 2021 Between: Mudavath Bichya M. BichYa, S/o Occ. Presently Nil (previously doing Achampet, Mahaboobnagar District. Mudavath Kekya, Aged about 41 Years, Rickshaw Puller) R7o2-73, Gampanapally, ...APPELLANT/PETITION ER AND

1. Mandangula Srinu, S/o M. Balraj Aged ]r/ajor, -Occ.Owner 22Y 8oi8 R/o H. No. 9-68, Achbmpet Tovin, Mahaboobnagar District. of Ar{o bearing No AP

2. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, Rep. by its Manager (Legal) H' No. 4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad - 50000'1. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 09/0112020 passed in MVoP No.3096 of 2014 on the file of the court of the chairman, lVlotor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional 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 P. CHANDRA MOULI, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.'l and sRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation awarded enhanced Rs 3,89,4331 to Rs 6,30,7751' 3. That the rate of interest is reduced trom 12o/o to 75% per annum from the date of claim petition titl realization. I i I 4 That the claimant be and is hereby shall pay the deficit Court fee 4 That the interest for the period of delay is forfeited

6. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to deposit the compensatic,n amount with accrued 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.

7. That on sue lr deposit by the respondents, the appeilant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. 6 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUry REGISTRAR lffrue Copyll To

1. The chairman, l\4otor Vehicre Accident craims Tribunar-cum-rX Additionar Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. SECTION OFFICER

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL l+ HIGH COURT DATED:14l0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.269 ol2O21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS rdP(e[ u W- .6d\'