S) ln Jetyarani Another v. The Manager Bajaj Allianz General

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri K. Ajay Kumar The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA o .A c. F J NT This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.12.2020 in M.V.O.p.No..t765 of 2Ol3passed by the Cherirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_ X Additional Chief Judgc,, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short .the 2- For convenience and crarity, the parties herein are referred to as they werr3 arrayed before the Tribunal. Tribunal,,).

3. The c:ase of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 27.03.2013 at about 10:00 hours, white the petitioner_Avula Ramulamma was crossing the road leading to Saroornagar from Dilsukhnagar by walk, a person coming on Honda Activa bearing No.Ap-298e.g762 has driven it at a high speect in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over it and dashed the petitioner as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries. lmmediately, she was shifted to Sai Sanjeevani Hospital for treatment. She incurred huge medical expenditure. Thus, she claimed a compensation of rs.5,00,000/_ 4. The respondent No.1 remained ex_parte. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.255-2021

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 rider of the bike did not possess valid driving license and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation'

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- "7. Whether the pteaded accident on 27'03'2013 at about 10:00 nours'-iai iccurred due to tle rgsl a.nd neglig.ent driving of the ariner if iri" vehicle i.e., Honda Activa Vehicle bearing No'AP- zg_a1lbiaz ind whether the petitioner received iniuries in the said accident?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, to and whether crime vehicle was owned by *noi'iriiii ,""po,t"ni-io.t ana ins,ured with respondent No-2 and what is the tiabtilttY of the resPondents?

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove her case, the claimant got examined PWs'1 to 4 and Exs.A1 to 46 were marked. on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to 85 were marked'

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,13,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant had preferred the Present aPPeal' g. Heard the submissions of Sri P. chandramouli, learned counsd/ for the appellant and Sri N. Sheshidhar, learned counsel ETD,J MACMA No.266 2021 representing Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learred counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner s,uffered a lot due to the injuries sustained by her in the accident, but the tribunal has granted a meager amount of compensaton of Rs.1,13,000/-. He argued that the disability certificate is not considered by the tribunal while the petitioner has sustained 30% disability due to the fracture of ankle, but the same is not taken into consideration, while awarding compensation. He further argued that the age of the petitioner is only 40 years, while the tribunal has considered her age to be 48 years which is not proper. He submitted that though the disability certificate disclosed 30% disability, the petitioner being a labourer cannot work anymore with her fractured ankle and thus has prayed to award 1007o functional disability. He further has submitted that the tribunal has awarded meager amount under the heads pain and suffering, incidental e.(penses and loss of earnings. He therefore, prayed to enhance th€ compensation.

11. Learn,-.d counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner underwent treatment only for three days and that there is no particular procedure that was followed by the poctor while issuing the disability certificate, it is not issued by the \ '--l 4 ETD,, MACMA No.266 2021 District Medical Board, but it is issued by a Private doclor. Hence has prayed not to consider the same. He further submitted that no income proof was filed by the petitioner and hence the tribunal has rightly assessed the income to be Rs.6,000/- per month and has prayed to uphold the same.

12. ln view of the above rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation? Whether the Order and Decree of the Tibunal need any inteierance ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Point No.1 :- a) The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal. lt is her case that she sustained grievous injuries and suffered a lot due to the accident, but the tribunal has awarded a very meager amount towards compensation. ln support of her case, she got examined PWs 2 & 4. b) PW2lDr.S. Anjaiah who is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Sai Sanjeevani Hospital, he deposed that the petitioner sustained following injuries in an accident i.e., 1) Head injury with temporo- partial region haematoma, 2) Blunt injury abdomen with into- perteneal free fluid minimal (Hemoperitonium), 3) Fracture medial 5 ETD,I MACMA No.265 2021 malleolus (rt)'ankle, 4) Blunt injury chest with bilminimal proximal pleural efforia and that he treated the petitioner as inpatient from 27 .03.2013 to 29.03.2013 with an advice for follow up treatment. He deposed that the petitioner would suffer stiffness of ankle joint and that she would have difficulty in prolonged walking and standing. Ex.A3 and 46 are issued by their hospital and that the medicines are purchased as per his advice. c) PW3 is a Billing Manager of Sai Sanjeevani Hospital. lt is elicited from ,rim that the petitioner paid the inpatient bill and also incurred expenditure towards purchase of medicines and the total bill was to an am,funt of Rs.,34,8411. d) PW4/D'. Soolapani who issued the disability Certificate. ln his cross examination it is elicited that he has not treated the patient at any point of time and that he is not a member of the district medical board, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that the petitioner sustained four injuries as stated by PW2 in his evidence. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary of Sai Sanjeevani Hospital distlosing her inpatient treatment 'from 27.03.2013 to

29.03.2013. lt also further reveals the details of the treatment underwent b1,the petitioner. Ex.AS is the Final Bill for Rs.24,900/- and apart from it several other bills for purchase of medicines are enclosed. lt is also elicited from PW3 that they have collected an \rg \ \ 6 ETL. MACMA No.266-2021 amountofRs.34,841/-towardsthemedicalexpenditurefromthe petitioner. Therefore, based on the evidence on record i'e'' the evidence of PW2 and 3 and also considering the Exs'A3 to A5' it is held that the petltioner must have taken inpatient treatment at Sai Sanjeevani Hospital. She sustained four grievous injuries and must have suffered acute pain and during the period of recovery' Therefore,anamountofRs'50,000/-isgrantedtowardspainand suffering to the Petitioner. e) With regard to the medical bills Rs 34'841 is awarded' The petitioner must have taken about a period of 3 months to recover from the said fractures. Though she underwent treatment for three days, the fracture injuries would take some time to heal' the petitioner to gain normalcy, it would take around three months to recover. Therefore considering the said period of recovery' an amount of Rs-10,000/- towards extra-nourishment' Rs'10'000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is granted. Thus, a total amount of Rs.74,841/- ie', (40,000/- + 34'841) is awarded under the heads "medical expenses, transportation' extra-nourishment and attendant charges and other incidental expenses' The petitioner asserted that she used to work as a labourer' 0 No proof can be expected in this regard' 4,-- 7 ETD,J MAcMA No.266_2021 S) ln Jetyarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Allianz General;l the Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason, no documentary evidence can be expected. However, taking into consideratic,n the avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident beng 2013, the monthly income of the deceased could be reckoned a: Rs.9,000/- and has also added future prospects. ln case of a labourer who is a lady, Rs.g,000/- was taken as earnings and the petit:ioner herein is also a 4O-year-old lady as per the charge sheeUA2 and FIR/Ex.A1 and as per the medical certificate. Considering her age and ability to work, Rs.9,000/- per month is assessed. Therefore, loss of earnings for three months comes to a total of Rs.2,7,000/- i.e., (Rs.9,000 x 3). h) No anrount towards disability is awarded as the petitioner failed to prc,ve that she sustained any disability in the accident. Though PW2t says that there would be stiffness in ankle, he has not deposed witl' regard to the disability. i) PW4 deposed about the disability and issued disabitity certificate, but he has not even treated the petitioner. Hence, the same is not r:onsidered. ' Civil Appeal Nos.43tO-43 of2023 ETr,.. MACMA No.265-2021 j) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled 8 is calculated as Rs.1,51 ,8411- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.1,12,841t- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly

14. Point No.2:- ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum' of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.1 ,51,841/- from that of Rs. 1,12,841/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, Order and Decree dated 10.12.2020 in tVl.V.O.P.No.1765 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,12,8411- to 1,51,841/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interesl @ 7.5o/o per annum frenr{he date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are ETD,J MACMA No.266_2021 directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a perriod 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 appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Misc,=llaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Cha rman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, HYderabad.

2. One CC .o Sri P Chandra Mouli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC':o Sri K. Alay Kumar, Advocate [OPUCI 4 Two CD '3oPies ila_ ASikar,: HIGH COURT DATED: 1 4 10812025 () Y * 1HE S / ',.c l2i * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.266 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED Ks Dla.l>e 134441 tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TTRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No: 266 OF 2021 Between: Smt. Avula Ramulamma, Wo Ramulu ...Petitioner AN D 1 2 Bhonagiri Yadaiah, S/o Naraiah lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Manager (Legal), 3'd Floor, . Osman Plaza Near Nagarjuna Circle, Punjagutta X Roads, HYderabad ..Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of l/otor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.V.O.P,No.1765 of 2013 dated 10-12-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X 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 Sri P. Chandra tVlouli, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimant be and hereby is partly allowed order and decree dated 10-12-2020 in M.V.O.p.No.1765 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Adclitional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from RsJ,12,8411- to 1,51,8411- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

2. That the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited; 3. That 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 copyoftlrisJudgmentafterdeductingtheamountifanyalreadydeposited; 4. That on s,uch deposit the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount withotrt furnishing any security;

5. That sav€: as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shall stands confirmed in all other respects, and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' sd/- M JAWAHAR REDDY TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 'l . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Oourt, HYderabad.

2. Two CD CoPies AS/kant i I I I ) lHE S C) -i.l / ''rf,B I It', * * HIGH COURT DATED 1410812025 DECREE MACMA.No.266 of 2021 PARTLY,ALLOWED Kg e(,[-e .