The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This aplteal ariscs out o[ an award passed br he Chairman, Motor Accidenls Clairns Tribunal - cum - XXVI I r clitional Chief Judge, City (livil Court, Hl,derab:rd, in MVOp.Nr L2zt of 2016 dated 05.O 1.202 I

2. Appcllanr is thc pc tirioner/ claimant and '. iRTC are the rcspondents rn MV()l,.No. 124 of 2016.

3. On 27.06.2015 ar abour 1O.10 a.rn. u,hile the appellant/ petitioner u'as procecding towards Gandr; rr Road on his cycle on the k:ft sicle, r,r hen he rcached citizen hospr al gate at thal time one RTC bus bcaring No.AP-1 l -Z-6286 came ,\ th high speed in a rash anrl negligent manncr, dashed him, as i result tre leLl donn, sustained lractrlre of both boncs of rieht 1:1. hcad injury and blunt injtrries all over the bodv_ Immediately h: rr,.as shifted to Citizen Hospital, Nallagandla for tre atment, implant s rvere inserted. The appellanl / pctitioncr lr.as completely bed riddc ,r, he lost his income, he is not in a position to attend the j,r; arrd he has engaged a servant by paying a salary of Rs.5,00O,, per-month to attend his day to day needs. He became totally rlrs :blecl, lost his '2 / tt) BRMR, J MACMA.No.52 ot 2022 amenilies, social status and he is the only earning member of the lamily and unmarried. Appellan t/ petitioner was working in Cognizant Technokrgies and vr.as drawing salary of Rs. 1,25,OO0/ per month, aged about 28 years as on the date of accident and claimcd :rn amount of Rs.25,OO,0OO/ towards compensation.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have hled their counter and contended that the compensation claimed by appellant / petitioner is exorbitant, unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. The Tribunal based on the pleadings of the parties has framed the follorving issues: i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting injuries sustained bv the petitioner, Ch.Dakshina murthy, due to the rrsh and negligent driving of R'IC bearing No.AP- I1 Z 6286 b5' tts d rrver? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents? iii) To what relieP

6. Appellant was examined as PW1, also examined PW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A10. Driver of the crime vehicle has filed his afhdavit as RW1 but the same was eschewed by the Tribunal. 7 . The Tribunal after an.alyzing the evidence let by the appellant/ petitioner has awarded the compensation as under: \-\ '" ry t, 1t) BRN1Ii,.I r \CltfA. No.52 or'2022 fled rest for 3 rnonths Towards transportation Rs 2,10,C( 7- Rs.10,O()'l ' Torvards iixtra nou rishmc nt Rs.30,O(), ) ' Iror removal of implants Ii>u,ards yrain and suf'fcrirrg Rs.35,O(l,l ' Rs.75,O(J i ' Total compensation Rs.3,6O.( { 0/ along u,ith tnlercst at tllc rare c:tf 7.5o/o from the rlr t. o;' iiling the pctitiorl till deposit of amounr by the respondent Nos. t and 2 jointl,,' and severalll. withrn two monLhs. The appr I lrnt i pcritroner was permitted tct withdran half of thc deposited arn I tt aiong u,itJr interest and costs and the remaining half of t ho. (:ompensation amount shall be kept in any Nationalized bank for t,\ .) years.

8. Learned counsel for the appcllant submrts t I r t (he 'I'ribunal ought to have awarded the total compensation : aimccl by the appellant/ petilioner, failecl to consider the disirlr htv certificate issued by PW2 and also failed to considcr thc Iss of earning capacity at 25oA. Thc Tribunal ought to lzLve awarcled Rs.4,OO,OOO/- towards loss of earning, instcad tllr-cof has only awarded Rs.2,1O,000/- and failed to award anl .l toultt towards transportation charges. The Tribunal failed to avrz r I medical bill, nursing charges and service charges of Rs.SO.0O(), . The Tribunal 4//t0 BRMR, J MACMA No.52 of 2022 failed to award amount towards loss of amenities, social status, shock, mental agony and marriage prospec[s lo the tune of Rs.4,30,OOO/ - and the interest to be aq'arcled is at the raLe of 9o/o pcr annum, prayed to enhalrce the amount. [n support of his contentions, has relied upon [he clecision in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Miss.K.Subhashini and anotherl.

9. Learned counsel lor the respondcnts submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded Rs.3,60,0OO/ u.ith intercst at the rate of 7.5%o per annum, no interferencc is cailed for and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel and pcrused the record. i 1. Now the point for consideration is: whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compertsation, if so, to what amount? l2.l The evidence of PWl is thal he was aged about 28 years as on the date of the accident (27.06.20151, lhe accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of TSRTC Bus beanng No. AP-11-Z-62a6 as a result he sustained grievous injuries i.e., (i) compound fracture of right leg both bones, [ii) \\.\ heqd injury, (iii) -.4- r MAcMA.Nos.2674 ot 2013 and 1009 of 2019, High Court for the State of Telangana, dated 12.01.2023 I

5./ r0 IIR\IR,.J i ACM,\ No.52 oI2022 blunt injurics all over tJre bodl', hc rvas operated zLn l irnplants u,ert: inserted. Dr-\/. K.V.Prasad, M.S.(Ortho) treatcd lr r r ir Vardhzrn l-Iealt].rcare ancl l)iagnostics, Secunderabad, assess,. thr: clis.rbilitr al 25"/u partial irncl permanent and Ioss q[ carning c : ta<:itv as 25,L. F'or rcmoval ot irnplants i[ will costs about Rs.3i] ( OO/, ancl u,as earning Rs. 1,25.0001 per month.

12.2 In his cross examination he stated that [r,. resrgned from Oognizant Technologies after onc ycar of the acci,1 rnt r.e., in thc month ol Auglrst 20 16 aud that he has medical in ; rrance, part of the medical bil]s are covered by the insurzrncc poli,-. and as pcr the pav slip his designation is shou,n as Associate Resr:,r c.h Manager.

13. PW2 (Dr.V. K.V.Prasad) deposed that he r r,r,orking as Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon and was a m(t1 ur cf Medical []o:rnl in (Jsmania General Hospital. patir r r b1,. name Dhakshinamrlrlhy/ PW I aged abouL 28 years apprr t chcrl hinr rvith post lraumatic stilfness right knce and ankle joir t s, j)atient \.as involved in RTA in 20 I 5 and was treated surgic : rlv in Citizens Hospital. On 24.1 1.2018 he examined the piit enr clinicalll., radiologically and gone through the medical recrr r is :Lnd issued Ex.A6 / disabilitl, certificate. Patient has sustaj r:d compound fracture of both bones of right leg clue to RTA tlnd r.,rs treated with skin grafting, open reduction and internal Ilxatio: of the bones_ I 6ir io BRMR, J MACMA.No.52 of 2O22 Patient had stiffness of the right knce (ROM 0L900) and right ankle (ROM 0-100). The permane nt partial and lunctional disability in the patient is around 25o/ct aflcl loss of earning capacirv- is 25%. The disability is assessed on ALIMCO manual. Paticr-rt cannot sit, squate, stand or walk normally. Ex.AS are three prescriptions, Ex.A7 is the estimation certificate for implants removal surgery, which will cost around Rs-35,O00/- and Ex.A1O is the X ray fltlm' PW2 denied the suggcstion that hc issued Ex-A6 to help the patient.

14.1 In Pappu Deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and others2 the 'l'hree Judge Bench of thc Supreme Court held that "to assess as to whether the permanent disabiliry has any' adversb effect on thc earning capacity of the injured. A person who is engaged and cannot fairly move to attend to his duties may not be able to match the earning in comparison with the one who is healthy and bodily abled"

14.2. In Syed Saleem Vs. Abdut Shukur and another3, the learned Judge has considered the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Charan Singh Vs. G.Vitlal Reddla and held that the time gap in obtaining the disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as disability cannot be assessed immediately on lhe next day, of ' 1zozz1 ts scc zso , (2OO7) r Al-D 382 ' zoo: 1+pro ta: 1oa1 .;rs\1?yr 7 I Tlta I I\,1R, .1 I ACIU.\ j\-o.52 ol 2022 sustaini.g tl'rt: inluries u,rrich is followed in Unitec r <lia Insur^nce Companl, Ltd. r

15. Thr: Trilrrrn:rl has not consrderecl trx.A6i rlis r litr' ,'crtilrr-:rte on tlre assumpt ion t.hat the petitioner himself has r lmit I cd in the cross examination that cven after the accident hr duties in Cognrzant Tcchnologies and there is trrt futurr: earnings of the pctitioner. The said finding o1 pen crse in vrcr.r- of thr: fact that pW2 who issui:, I Ex. At-r w:rs it mcntbei' of' Mcdical Bo:rrr1 C)smania General Hospi : i. :r;trl hc is a qu:r li{ted dor:tor r>ss ol pay or he 'l'riltur-r;rl is attended the .icate

16. Though I,W2 has rssued trx.A6/disabilig cer i shorving thc permanent partial and functional disability ar.) rncl 2St)/o and [he loss of earnrng capacity as 25ok. pW1 during 1] t cotrrse ol. his cross cxan-rinzltion statc.i that he worked in Cogniza.r Technologies for a period o[ one year after the acciden t consideration the ;rdmission made by the appelli r I , this Corlrt asscss thc disrrbilitv at \O%o. .l.akrng

17. As per tl.re salary slip of the appellant Ex.Ag ll av slips 04 in numltcr) lor thc month of July,2o15, Net Salan, rr ter d<:ducting TDS is Rs.711,088/ -. ,l.he Tribunal has taken t re salary as Rs.70,00O/ per month. As the appellant is below 4( ) years, 4Ool, of future prospects shourcr be added as per Natrr r .l Insurance 8,/ Io BRMR, J MACMA No 52 of 2022 Company Vs. Pranay Sethis which comes to Rs.28,000/- (70,000 x 400/"1 and the monthly sa1ary ol che appellant is Rs.98,OOO/- (70,O00 + 28,OOO). Annual salarv comcs to Rs. 1 1,76,OOO / (98,O00 x l2). Appcllant is aged about 28 vears as on the date of accident and appropriate multiplier is 17 as per Smt. Sarla Verma & Ors. vs. Dethi Transport Corporation & Anr.6, which comes to Rs.1,99,92,0001- (11,76,000 x 17). If lO%o disability is takcn it would be Rs.19,99,2O0 l- (1 ,99,92,OOO x 10%). i8. The computation of the appellant is as under: S1. No. Name of the Head Compensation arvarded by this Court Rs.2,1O,OO0/- (70,OO0 x 3) t-1 L t i 2

4. J b Loss of earning capacity for three months Rs. i0,0OO/ Transportation to Hospital, damages and arLicles to clothi Extra nourishment and engaging servant Pain and suffering, menta[ agony and Rs.1,O0,OO0/- loss of amenities Removal of implants Rs.30,0oO / - iRs.35 ,ooo/- Rs. 19,99,200/ [,oss of income duc to disabitity Total Rs.23,84,200/ '1zorz1 ro scc oao u 1zoosl z no tzsS 9i l() LlRivllt,.J : ICNI.{ \() ;2 ot 2022

19. lntercsi 10 bc atuarded at tlte rale of gorro pt:t tnnLrr)t as [)er thc d<:r:ision ol thr: Su1;reme Court in Anjali I r cl Otlrers vs. Lokenrlr:r Rathod anrl others othcrsT. I

20. In the resrilt. MACMA.No. S'2 of 2022 is :r I r..r,erl and the comperrsatiot-r arr,'arclt:d b1' the TribUnal is enhanced i s under a) The impugned award dated 05.01.2O21, 1x ssecl in M\rC)P.No. 1'24 c.tf 20 16, stands modified. b) 'lhe contpe nsatiorr awarde<1 by the Trilr.r t:rl i.c., Rs.3,(;0,0007 is enhanced to Rs.23,g4,20O1_ together rvith intcrr:st at the rate ol 9ok per annunl rom Lhe date oI tiLing tl-rc pcrition till paymer-rt. c) Appellanr is e ntitied to withdraw the enl irrr irmoLlnr ,",,,ith cosrs atrd in[erest thereon without 1t rnishing sccuriLl . d) The rcspondents are hereby directed to ck 1 osit the arvar<lcd antotlnt jointly and scverally with in r rt:st and costs less the amount already paid if an1, r i[hin a period ol 60 davs from thc date of receipt ol r cop5, ef th is judgmcnt. 2022 sCC OnLine 5C 1681 to/ta BRMR, J MACMA No.52 of 2022 As a sequel miscellaneous application/ applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRARo SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (With records, if any) 2 One CC to SRl. K HARIMOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRTC) Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies SNJ/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.52 of 2022 [2 Draft /,-.... C?.\ a H S , ' '.'\ ,/i\.C- i 6 .,i.1 i1,25 1' t ,S c * MACMA IS ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. i I i I I I x I I I I I : t I a [ 34481 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:52OF 2022 Between: Ch.Dakshina Murthy, S/o Samba l\Iurthy Aged 28 years Occ. Pvt. Job, Presently Nil, Rio H lG. 1 26,Phase l, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram,Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND

1. The TSRTC, Rep. by its N/anaging Director, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. .

2. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Mehdlpatnam Depot Mehdipatnam, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O P.No. 124 of 2016 dated.05/01/2021 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI 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 arguments of Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri N.Praven Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1, and none appeared for the Respondent.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced.

2. That the impugned award dated 05.11.2021, passed in MVOP.No 124 of 2016, stands modified.

3. That the conrpensatron awarded by the Tribuna, e., Rs.3,60,000/- is enhanced to Rs.23,84,200/- together with interest at thcr ate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

4. That appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amou r with cots and intrest thereon wtthout furnishing security.

5. That the respondents are hereby directed to deposi lointly and severally with interest and costs less the I any within a period of 60 days from the date of rec Judgment. :he awarded amount nount already paid if :ipt of a cop of this

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower shall s ands confirmed in all other respects. and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeai. SD/. U.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASS; STANTREGISTRAR (q //TRUE COPY// To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunat.cunr ) XVI Additional Chief 2. Two CD Copies Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad SN.I, NV I} HlGH COURT DATED:2510712025 DECREE MACMA.No.52 ot 2022 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT Cc STS