The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is filed by the claimant' aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 10.1 1.2Q20 in O'P'No'1048 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXl Additional Chief Judge, 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 was that on 21 .03.2008 at about 11:00 a.m., the petitioner was going along with the pillion rider on Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-24R-5052 from Chityal towards Gandorigudem and when they reached Sri Raghavendra Petrol Bunk at Vattimarthy Vilhge, one Lorry bearing No.AP-29U-2898 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and tried to overtake another vehicre and dashed the motor bike of the petitioner, as a resulr the petitioner and the pillion rider sustained grievous ,n,ur,es. tmmediatety, N"rtqo"rry .no ,ror' ,n')e was shifted to Kai eni Hospttar, t re b Kamineni Hospitar, L.B Nagar br better treatment. He incurred huge expenditure and sought 2 MACMA No.519-2021 €TD,I compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.2 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 conteMed that the driver of the Lorry was not holding valid driving license. Hence, their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framtd the following issues for consideration:- '1. whether the adcident occurred due. to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry beaing No.AP-nU-2898? 2 3 Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? lf so, to what amount and from whom? To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs.1 to 4 and Exs.Al to A19. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.3,91,600/-. Aggrbved by the same, the claimant had preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation .., 3 Efo) MACMA No.519_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellanl and Sri Harinath Reddy'Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioner sustained 40% disability, but the tribunal has granted low amount towards loss of earning capacity. He further argued that the petitioner is a driver, earning Rs.9,000/- per month, but the tribunal has considered the income to be Rs.4,500/- per month which is very low. He further submitted that the tribunal has failed to consider the loss of future prospects of the petitioner and has awarded very meager amount towards compensation. He further submitted that the tribunal has awarded very low amounts under various heads to which the petitioner is entitled He further argued that the Tribunal has granted low rate of interest @ 6%, hence, he prayed to enhance the same.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that though the Doctor has deposed that 40% disabilig is sustained by the petitioner, it is a temporary nature and the renewal of driving license of the petitioner shows that he has not lost any earning capacity and thus, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. He further argued that the petitioner failed to file any I I I I t: I 4 ' €TD.l MACMA No.s19 2021 income proof and therefore Rs.4,5001 per month assessed by the tribunal is very reasonable and therefore, prayed to uphoid the decision cf the tribunal.

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 is entitbd to enhancement of compensation? Whether the ONer and Decrea of the Tibunal need any intederence ? To what relief ?

13. Point No.1 :- a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. His grievance is that he sustained grievous injuries and incurred huge medical expenses. ln support of his case, he got examined PW2. b) P\N2lOr. Kamaraju is an O(hopedic Surgeon at Kamineni Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:- 1) Head lnjury, 2) Left Frontal Contusion, 3) Avulsion lnjury Right Knee Joint, a) Chip Fracture of Lateral Condyle of Right Tibia, 5) Brachial Plexus lnjury (Right) Upper Trunk and that he was treated initially at Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally and then he was shifted to L.B Nagar. He was treated for his fracture iniuries in their hospital and he was admitted on 21.03.2008 aM was disqharged on 31.03.2008. He further stated that the petitioner "/ 5 ETDJ MACMA No.519-2021 sustained disability ol 4Oo/o which is partial and permanent and he further stated that Ex.A7 and ,A18 is issued by him. c) PW3/Dr. Subodh Raju is the Neuro Surgeon at Kamineni I I I Hospital, his evidence further reveals that he too has treated the petitioner conqervatively with medication during his stay in the Kamineni Hospital as inpatient. His evidence further reveals that Ex.A5/discharge summary, Ex.A6, A8 to A12, A14, 15, 17 and 19 are issued by their hospital. lt is further elicited from him that he was one of the doctors of the team who treated the petitioner along with Dr. Kamaraju/Orthopedic Surgeon. d) PW4/P. Rohini is the Billing lncharge of the Kamineni Hospital. It is elicited from her that Rs.56,1881 was collected towards bill from the petitioner. The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 stood unshaken during the course of cross examination. Their evidence is supported by the Ex.A6, A8 lo A12, A14, 15, 17 and 19. Therefore, the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwent by him are proved. A perusal of Ex.A30/MLC record shows that the petitioner sustained injuries in a road traffic accident, Ex.A4 is the outpatient card, while Ex.AS is the Discharge Summary issued by Kamineni Hospital, which shows that he was treated from 21.03.2008 and was discharged on 31.03.2008 which further reveals the details ofthe treatment. Ex.A6 is also an outpatient card showing that he went for I i I I 6 .. EID,J MACMA No.519 2021 I follow up treatment, the prescriptions are filed under €x.A7, A8, ,A1 'l , 410, A.12 and the medical bills are filed under Ex.A13. The document under Ex.A16 is tlre Driving License of the petitioner showing tlrat he was having a valid driving license to drive heavy goods vehicle, light motor vehicle and also HMV. The disability certificate under Ex.A1B issued by PW2 shows that he suffered 40% disability due to avulsion injury in the right leg. Thus the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, his treatrnent and the disability sustained by him as discussed above reveals that, the petitioner must have underwent acute pain and suffering due to the said injuries. Hence, an atnount of Rs.1,00,0001 is awarded under the head pain and suffering. e) With regard to the medical expenses, the evidence of PW4 coupled with Ex.A13 reveals that the petitiorrcr has paid Rs'56'188/- towards medical bills. Hence, it is rounded up to Rs'5'6'200/- towards medical expenses. lt is common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of Rs'10'@0/- under each head is awarded i.e, Rs 10,0001 towards extra-nourishment' Rs. 1 0,000/- towards transportation' Rs' 1 0'000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is awarded coming up to a total amount of Rs'40'000/-' Thus' an amount of ./ ./ I I r // // ErD) MACMA No.s19-2021 7 Rs.96,2001 (56,200 + 40,000) is awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation' attendant charges and incidental expenses. The case of the petitioner is that he used to work as driver in a 0 Sand Lorry of one Janga Reddy and was earning Rs'6'000/- as a salary and Rs.300/- towards Batta lt is elicited from Ex'A16 that he is a driver who is capable of driving LMV and HMV' S) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Altiance lnsurance Company Limitedl , the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. ln the said case, it was an unskilled labour, but in the present case, he is a driver. Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis, Rs.6,000/- is assessed to be the monthly income of the petitioner. h) With regard to the loss of earnings, he was inpatient for a week, and he sustained fracture injuries, thus he might have taken another three months for recovery. Therefore, loss of earnings for a period of 3 months is awarded i.e., Rs.18,0001 (Rs.6,0001 x 3). I / ' {zo r rlrz s66 236 I I i i i i \ 1, 8 Eto,.l MACMA No.519-2021 i) The loss of future earnings have to be awarded as per the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumaf. The evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate under Ex.A18 discloses 40o/o ot temporary disability to the right leg of the petitioner which is scaled down to 20% towards the whole body and the same is taken as the loss of earning capacity. The age of ttre petitioner is '29' years as per the disability certificate under Ex.A18 and the same is taken into consideration. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.6,0001 x 4OVo = Rs.2400 which cornes to Rs.8,400. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.8,400 x12 = Rs.1,08,000 x20o/o x 17= Rs.3,42,7201- j) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following cornpensation amounts: 1 2 J 4 Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering I Loss of earnin gs Loss of future earnin Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra- nourishment and other incidental e Tota I SES 1,00,000/- 18,000/- J 42 720t- 96,200/- 5,56,920/- I k) 'llhcrefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.5,56,920/- while the Tribunal has granted zot t ltoy scc :a: '? 9 ETD,,, MACMA No.519 2021 Rs.3,91,600/- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered 1 I ! accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) 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.5,56,920/- from that of Rs.3,91,6001 that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of compensation and the appellant counsel contention is that it is very low. c) ln T. Vijaya takshmi Vs. tJ. Dayamanait , a Bench of this High Court has increased the rate of interest from 6Yo lo7.5o/o awarded by the Tribunal to that of 60lo lo 7 .5o/o. d) ln Pathulothu Batu Vs. Devender Singh Yadava, a Bench of this High Court has increased the rate of interest from 6% lo 7.5o/o awarded by the Tribunal to that of 6Yo lo 7 .5o/o ' Mrrc+dA.No.229a of 20l6 ' MAcMA.No.3228 of 20l8 10 €TDJ MACMA No.519 2021 e) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothef; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum on the amount of compensation 0 ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Othersa and National lnsurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and OthersT; also interesl @7.5Yo per annum was granted on the amount of compensation S) Therefore, in the lrght 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 increased to that of 7.5% 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, modifying the Order and Decree dated 10.1 1.202O in O.P.No.1048 of The 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- tAdditional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of ComJunat Offence Cases-cum-Vl I Additional Metropolitan Sessions '2022 SCC Onlinc tS r0o u 2023 scc online Ts 1095 7 2023 SCC Online TS t 170 11 ETD,,J MACMA No.519_2021 Judge-cum-XXl Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,91,600/- to 5,56,920/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. 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 deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed /ffRUE COPY// \ SD'. T.SRINIVASA R ASSISTANT REGTS EDDY TRAR SECTION OFFICER \

1. The Chairman' Motor Accident Claims Tilhulral-cum- The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Tria I of Communal Offe nce Cases-cum- vil Add itional Metropol itan Sessions Jud ge-cum-XXl Additional Chief Judge' Hvd erabad.(With records , if an,J=or" *. I REDDY Advocate [OPUC] CC to SRI JAGATHPAL HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate IOPUCI

2. One 3. One CC to SRl. 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL \A- I To, HIGH COURT DATED:15/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.519 ot 2021 5"tATE st ttt ls o- o -x ..;...'z .-.,.' l^ c, PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS d%- I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP 19 2 Between: J. Venkataiah, S/o. J.Mallaiah, aged. 39 Years, Occupation. Driver, residents of Gangoriguda Village, Munogode Mandal, Nalgonda District., Temporarily Rl/o H.No.17-18-248, Malakpet, Hyderabad. .APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. B. Narsimha, S/o B.Mallaiah, Age Major, Occ. Business, R/o 4-12-95, Plot No.10, Road No.6, Arunodaya Colony, Hyderabad.

2. The Reliance General lnsurance Co., Rep. by its Regional Manager officer at Reliance House, ll Floor, Deccan Chambers, 6-3€66, B-5, Somajiguda, Hvderabad' ...RES'.NDENTS/RE''.NDENT' Appeal filed under Section 173 of M-V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 10.1'1.2020 passed in O P.No.1048 of 2008 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Communal Offence Cases-cum-Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXl Additional Chief Judge, 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 KASIREDDY JAGATPAL REDDY, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, advocate appeared for the Respondent M.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 be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,91,6001 to 5,56,920/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ / / 1 // To 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization and that interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

3. That the respondents be and are hereby d irected 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 deposited.

4. That on such deposit by the respondents, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SO/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llTrue Copyll \ \\ CTION OFFICER 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Trib um- The Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for the Trial of Comm al Offence Cases-cum- Vll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-fi| Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL Yv F HIGH COURT DATED:'15/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S'|9 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS udrpqtb ft'e"