The High Court · 2025 on 20 Aug 2025

Judgment

Thir; appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2893 of 2014 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judl;e, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal is that on

17.10.201,+ the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-22-N-6442 at about B:30 hours from Gamapanapally Village towards Ar:hampet along with one Mudavath Bichya as pillion rider and when they reached Uppupandu agricultural lands, one auto bearing No.AP-22-Y-8028 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent rnanner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and dasheJ against the motor bike of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner and the pillion rider fell down and sustained severe multiple fracture injuries. tmmediately, they were shifted to Governmerrt Area Hospital. The petitioner was admitted as inpatient from 1710.2014 to 27.10.2014 at ozone Hospitats, Kothapet, I 2 ETD,J MACMA No.267 2021 Hyderabad and that the petitioner sustained permanent disability and has incurred huge expenses. He claimed a compensation of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that there was no negligence of the auto driver and the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner himself.

6. Based on the rivar contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for triat: i) ii) iii) "Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP-22-Y-8028 causing injuries to tni pltitioner? Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? lf so, to what extent and from whom? To what retief?" 7 - To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pws 1 to 5 and Exs.A1 to A1B were marked. on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.B, 1s,1ool-. Aggrieved by the same, the present a 3 ETD,J MACMA No;267 2021 appeal ls preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel fcr respondent No.2

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal l'ras granted meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the tribunal has not considered the disability of 52o/o sustained by the petitioner and that the said disability is proved by Ex.A6. He furlher argued that the earnings of the petitioner is taken to be verlr ls1ry by the tribunal and has granted very meager amount towards nredical expenses and loss of future earnings. He therefore, prayed to set aside the order and decree of the tribunal and to enhance the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the tribunal was right in granting the compensation by considering tl're entire evidence on record. He therefore, prayed to dismiss thr-. appeal.

12. Basr-.d on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: A ! I l l : :; l; I I 4 ETD,J MACMA No.267 202L I

3. Whether the claimant ,b entitled to enhancement of compensation? Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any intefference? To what relief? a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. PW3/Dr. Jalapathi Reddy who is an orthopedic surgeon at ozone Hospital, he deposed with regard to the treatment at their hospital. He stated that Ex.A4 that is the discharge summary, Ex.A7lbunch of prescriptions and X-ray films filed under ex.A4 are issued by their hospital and that the petitioner purchased medicines as per his advise during inpatient treatment and also during his visits as out patient. Thus, the said medical bills are also proved. He further deposed that the patient requires another surgery for which he issued a prescription letter for Rs.84,4001- under Ex.AB. it is further elicited from his evidence that he may need arthrodesis of right knee and hinged total knee replacement. During his cross examination it is elicited from him that he has seen the petitioner lastly on 16.02.2016 for foltow up treatment. b) : PW4/Dr. G. Raja Babu is a Billing Manager in ozone Hospital. It is elicited through his evidence that the petitioner was re-admitted on 20.12.2014and was discharge d on 24.12.2014and at the time of €-. t, 5 ETD,J MACMA No;.267_202L the said discharge he paid Rs.20,000! towards final bilr. And again for the 3'd time, he was admitted at ozone Hospital on 23.03.201s and was discharged on 26.03.2015 and that he has paid Rs.45,780/- against lhe final bill of Rs.63,825/- for which they have given concessirln of Rs.18,0451-. Thus, the petitioner had paid a total amount of Rs.3,23,310/- towards inpatient final ball for getting admitted on three occasions. lt is elicited during his cross examinat on that Ex.AS is signed by their Billing Executive by name Mr. Uperder and srikanth and that the petitioner was not treated under health lnsurance Scheme. c) Ex.A3 is the lnjury certificate which disclose that the petitioner has sustained Grade-lll B compound comminuted fracture of lateral :ondyle, Grade-ll B, comminuted intraarticular fracture tibia to right tlone, Grade-ll compound montegia fracture dislocation, compounrl fracture patella bone, closed fracture middle phalanyx index fingler and phalanyx ring finger of right hand. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by ozone Hospitals, it discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 17.10.2014 and was discharged on

27.10.2014. It also disctoses the said injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 which were treated at ozone Hospitals during the said period. Ex.AS is the Fin;rl Bill issued by ozone Hospitals which is to an extent of Rs.63,825/-. The petitioner has also filed the other medical bills /'r r i I I 5 ETD,J MACMA No.267 2021 which are included in Ex.AS. He further has filed several other medical bills issued by pharmacy of ozone Hospital which shows that he purchased medicines as per the prescriptions given by the ozone Hospital during the period of treatment. Thus, it is opined that, in view of the injuries sustained by him and the trauma underwent by him, an amount of Rs.1,00,0001 is to be awarded under the head pain and suffering. d) with regard to the medical expenses, it is discussed supra that the inpatient treatment undenruent by the petitioner are proved by the evidence of PW3 and 4, and further the medical bills under Ex.AS are also proved to an extent of Rs.5,50,055/-. The petitioner must have incurred some expenditure towards the extra-nourishment and also attendant charges in addition to the incidental expenses. Thus, considering all these aspects, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is granted under the heads, transportation, attendant charges, incidental expenses and extra-nourishment. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,50,055/- + Rs.30,000) is awarded under medical expenses, extra-nourishment, attendant charges and incidental expenses. e) with regard to the loss of earnings, the petitioner is stated to have been working as a Business Man and he asserted that he used to run a Kirana store and that he used to earn Rs.20,0001- per . - 7 ETD.J MACMA No.267 2O2I month prior to the accident. ln support of his case, he got examined PWs. 0 P\ /5/S. Naresh is an lnspector of lncome Tax, he has filed their office copies of income tax returns under Ex.A16 and A17 for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 and Ex.AiB is the covering letter. He has also identified Ex.A15, a computer generated copy of the inconre tax returns submitted by the petitioner in his cross examinaticn. lt is elicited during his cross examination that as per the income tax returns field by the petitioner for the year 2017-2018, his gross total income is Rs.4,04,1821- and as per his record there are no submi:ssions of the tax returns prior to 24.01.2016 and that Ex.A15 for the year 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 is not generated from the office web site of income tax department. It is eticited through him that I:x.A16 and A17 contain endorsement as invalid and it means thert the returns are not processed by CPC, Bangalore and that for ther income tax assesse, he has to sign the acknowledgment form for w'hich the assessment will be done. Thus, through these exhibits the petitioner wanted to prove his income through the kirana store and that he used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. Since the income ta>r returns coutd not be proved through the evidence of PWs, it is held that the petitioner being an able bodied person, aged about 36 years, oh a reasonable hypothesis, his earnings can be Il; l: !: i :i 8 ETD.J MACMA No.267 2021 t--\ assessed as Rs.10,ooo/- per month prior to his accident. In view of the nature of injuries and the treatment underuvent by him, it is opined that he must have been under rest for the injuries to heal for about a period of 6 months. Therefore, an amount of Rs.60,000/- i.e., (10,000/- x 6) is granted under the head loss of earnings. g) The evidence of PW2tDr. c. shiv Kumar who is a civil Assistant surgeon (ortho) in cHC Mydukur reveals that from July 2013 to september 2016, he worked at Area Hospital, Gadwal and that the petitioner has attended sADAREM camp, Achampet and that PW2 was a member of the medical board who has issued Ex.A6. The disability certificate shows that he sustained szo/o disability which is permanent in nature and the said disability is with regard to his right lower limb impaired reach, sub type of disability is post traumatic sequet limbs. tn his cross examination he admitted that there is no mention of range of restricted movements in the disability certificate and that the guiderines under which the said disability certificate is issued is also not mentioned. h) The respondent counsel has contended that the said Ex.A6 cannot be relied upon because the guidelines are not filed and also that the documents such as X-rays are not fited. But the said contention cannot be upheld because it is issued in the SADAREM I l I o 9 ETD,J MACMA No.267_2021 Camp ccnducted by the government and it is a system generated certificater. lt is also elicited from the cross examination of PW2 that it is a compruter generated document. Thus, Ex.A6 can be safely relied upon and the disability as revealed from the said certificate is 52o/o. i) With regard to the loss of future earnings, since the petitioner has pleacled that he sustained 52o/o disability, and it is elicited from PW2 thal he sustained 52o/o disability, some amount has to be awarded towards loss of future earnings. ln view of the dicta laid down in fi'aj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kuma/,52o/o of disability as disclosed from Ex.AG is scaled down to 25o/o with regard to the whole body and the lc>ss of earnings is scaled down to 10%. The age of the petitioner s '36' years as per the disability certificate and the same is taken intc, consideration. Therefore, adding 40o/o towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.10,000/- x 4Ooh = Rs.4000 vvhich comes to Rs.14,000. The loss of future earnings would be FLs. 14,000 x12 = Rs.1 ,68,000 x 1 }Yo x 1 5= Rs.2,S2,0OO/-. j) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 3 Cornpensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Loss of Loss of future earni due to 1,00,000/- 60,000 2,52,OOO|- ' zot t 1to scc 343 10

4. under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental Total ETD,J MACMA No.267 2021 t'" 5,80,055/- k) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entifled is calculated as Rs.g,92,05s/- whire the tiiuunat has granted Rs.8,15,100/-.Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entifled 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.9,92,055/- from that of Rs.B, 1s,1ool- 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 ctaimant is parfly allowecl, order and Decree dated 10.02.2020 in M.V.o.p.No.2g93 of zo14 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident ctaims Tribunal-cum-tX Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, by enhancing 11 ETD,J MACMA No.267 202L the conrpensation from Rs.8,15,100/- to 9,92,055/- and the enhancel amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest fcr the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are dire<;ted to deposit the compensation am.ount with accrued interest vrithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of 1:his Judgment after deducting the amount if any already depositecl. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs ft/iscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand clos;ed. .SD/- B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motcr Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC r.o Sri Pallati Chandramouli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC 1:o Sri Harinath Reddy Some, Advocate TOPUCI 4. Two CD {}opies NVB/PSL ILl '-.si, - : -: "f' ," ':t -_l-:.. .r .+ \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:2010812025 STATE o L) 1t r[B ?u$ :-/ Gi -k r-':'-:lli ' JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.267 of 2021 MACMA I.S PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS v t34441' tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA EO Between: Shivva Suresh Babu , S. Suresh, S/o Shivva Kumara Swamy, Aged about- 38 years, Occ- Presently Nil (previously doing Business in whole sale Kiranam and General Stores) R/o Gampanapally village, Achampet Town, Mahaboobnagar DistrigtI ...Appel lanUPetitioner AND

1. Mandangula Srinu, S/o M. Balraj Aged Major, Occ- Owner of ,Auto bearing No. AP 22 Y 8028 R/o H.No.9-68, Achampet Town, Mahaboobnagar District. 2. Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager (Legal) H. No.4-1-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad - 500001. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act, aggrieved with the Judgment and Decree, dated. 10102120201 in M.V.O.P.No.2893 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 The Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. Tha: this Court while partly allowing the appeal modified the Or:der and Dec'ee of the Lower court, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.[1,15,100 to Rs.9,92,055/-.

2. Thal the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per ilnnum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 4. 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 copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already depcsited.

5. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount withc,ut furnishing any security.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court is confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. B. REKHA RANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/ To,

1. The Mot<>r Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED i2'010812025 DECREE MACMA.INo.267 of 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS 6 \