The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A has been preferred !y the appellant- claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated

25.09.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.634 of 20L3 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Ill Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the Tribunal).

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Compaly. Perused the material on record

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they aIe arraved before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.2012 in the morning hours, the claimant along with one Mushke Parvathalu, who is father of his co-brother, was proceeding to Dharmaram from Malyalapally Village on his TVS Victory Motorcycle and when they reached near the well of Gudipalli Village on the road leading from Godavarikhani to l 2 Macma 310 I,rNR,J 'l Dharmaram, the APSRTC bus bearing No.Ap-15-y-4778 driven by its driver came from back side in a rash and negligent marlner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which, the claimant and the pillion rider fell down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries.

5. A crime was registered against the driver of vehicle for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.p.C. Immediately after the accident, the claimalt was shifted to Sarojini Hospital, Karimnagar, where he was treated as inpatient from 09.O3.2OI2 to 15.03.2012 and he underwent operation and plating was done to the fractured bones and he was discharged on 15.03.2012 with an advice to take treatment periodically. Due to non-union of left humerus fracture and implants failure, the petitioner was admitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, and he underwent operation for implants removal and he was discharged on 10. l2.2Ol4 wtth an advice to take treatment periodically. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained 88% disability, due to which he is unable to attend his regular 1abour work and lost his earnings. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered permanent disability to his left hand and he incurred al '1 3 IrN&J Macma 310 2020 arnount of Rs.5O,O00/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and still he is incurring expenses and also suffering from mental shock. Respondent No.1, being the owner, respon{ent No.2 being insurer ald respondent No.3 being hirer of the bus are jointly arrd severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affrdavit denying the allegations made in the ciaim petition contending that respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant as respondent No.3 hired the APSRTC bus. The compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive. It is further stated that the claimant might not know driving of the motorcycle and in confusion he came across the road and the alleged accident might have taken place. Respondent No.3 does not admit that the claimalt and driver of bus were having licences.

7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the Tribunal for consideration: 4 Macma 31r 'q0 ArN-&J (i) "Whether the accident had ocanrred due to rosh and_ negligent diuing of the offending uehicle i.e., ,4pSRIC Bus beaing No.AP iS-y-4778 diuen bg its driuer? (it) Whether the petitioner is entitted. to compensation, if so, to uthat amount and from uhom? (iit) To tuhat retieJ?" 8. After framing of issues, the claimant frled zrmendment petition seeking amendment for enhancement of claim amount from Rs.3,OO,O0O/- to Rs.13,O0,OOO/_ for the injuries and the disability sustained by him in the accident. Respondent No.2 frled additional counter stating that after eighteen months from the date of alleged accident, the claimant himself is responsible for non-union of injury as he has not taken proper care due to which, he was readmitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The alleged injuries sustained by the claimant are not serious in nature, but due to the negligence of the claimant himself, it was not cured.

9. During the course of enquiry, the claimalt himself examined as P.W. 1 besides examining p.W.2 to 4 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A.9 ald Ex.C.1 through P.W.4. On behalf of the respondents, R.W. 1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 5 NNR,] Macma 310 2020

10. The Tribuna1, having perused the entire oral and documentar5r evidence on record, came to the conclusion that as per Ex.B.l-Agreement, dated 22.Og.2OOg, executed between respondent No.1 ald respondent No.3, the owner of the bus i.e., respondent No. I is liable to pay compensation to the claimant under the Act, 19gg ald accordingly, dismissed the claim petition against respondent No.3. The Tribunal also held that as the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of ApSRTC bus driven by its driver ald as there are no violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant and held that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly arld severally liable to pay compensation to the claimalt at Rs.92,4gO/_ with proportionate costs and interest @T.S%o per urnnum within a period of one month from date of said order and on such deposit, the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. Being dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimant frled the present appeal.

11. learned counsel for the appellant_claimant contended that in the said accident, the appellant received r 6 NNR J MacmL3 tCr:-i{t grievous injury to his left hand, which resulted in commuted fracture of humerus, head injury and simple injuries all over the body. He also submitted that the appellart examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated him and issued Ex.A.3_wound certificate. He further submitted that due to the accident, the appellant sustained permanent disability to his left hand and he is not able to lift the weights and not in a position to do centering work. prior to the accident, the appellant used to do centering work at Ramagundem and used to earn an amount of Rs.9,OOO/_ and odd per month. The appellant atso frled Ex.A.8-disability certificate showing the disability at 88/o. He a_lso submits that the Tribuna_l has not awarded any amount towards loss of expectation of life, loss of amenities and loss of enjoyment of life. He further submits that the Tribunal awarded meagre amount under the head of pain and suffering, extra nor.rrishment and trarrsportation charges and ultimately he prays to enhance the compensation amount.

12. On the other hand, Iearned Standing for contended that the respondent No.2-Insurarnce company Tribunal, after considering evidence on record, rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to the entire :l 7 }iNR,J Macma 310 2020 interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

13. Having heard learned cor.rnsel on either side, the point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant is entltled for enhancem,ent of cornpensation? L4. POINT: There is no dispute with regard to occu.rrence of accident. It is also an admitted fact that the driver of APSRTC bearing Bus bearing No.AP-15-Y-4778 found guilty of the offence and he was convicted by the Court concerned directing him to pay fine of Rs. 1,OOO/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. It is also not in dispute that as per the gravity of injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, he was treated as inpatient from 09.03.2012 to

15.03.2012 ald he also underwent operation and plating was also done to the fractured bones and he was discharged on

15.O3.2012 with a follow up treatment periodically. P.W.2, the Doctor who issued Ex.A.3 wound certificate also deposed 8 NNRJ Macma-310J 9) that due to non-union of left humerus fracture and implants failure, the appellant also admitted in NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he underwent operation for implants removal and he was discharged on 70.12.2014 arld he was advised to take bed rest and take follow up treatment for nine weeks.

15. As per Ex.A8-Disability certilicate issued by the District Medical Board, the appellant has sustained 887o disability, due to which he is unable to attend to his centering work and lost his earnings. Appellant claims that he incurred an amount of Rs.6O,OOO/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 1O,0OO/- towards extra nourishment. However, the Tribunal did not award any amount because the appellant has taken treatment under Arogzasree Scheme as the medical expenses would be borne by Government arrd so also as appellant has not flled medical bills, the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.S,OOO /- only towards medical expenses, Rs.3,0OO/- only towards transportation charges, and Rs.5,0OO/- towards extra nourishment. 9 NN&J Ma.ma 310 2020

16. There is no dispute with regard to the age and nature of job. The appellant was working as Centring Labour. The Tribunal has notionally taken the income of the appellant at Rs.100/- per day. ln Latha Wq.d.hua asj,. Stqte of Bihart, the Honble Apex Court held that when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts. Hence the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the notional income of the appeilant (@ Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be meager. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribuna-l ought td have taken at least Rs.200/- per day as daily wages for the appellant. Accordingly, this Court enhanced the notional income of the appellant from Rs.1OO / - per day to Rs.20O/_ day and monthly notional income can be fix at Rs.6,OO0/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.7,OOO/- for (63 days) towards loss of income during the treatment period of 9 weeks and the same is accordingly enhanced to 12,600l- @s.200 * 63 days) 1 zoor 1ay scc rsz 10 NNR.I Macma 3lQffip L7. The main contention ,of the appellant in this appeal is with regard to disability sustained by the appellant. According to P.W.2, Doctor, who treated the appellant contended that the condition of appellant was good at the time of discharge and there will not be any further complication after the fracture was united, however PW.4 Doctor who treated the appellant later on, clearly deposed that the petitioner took treatment for non-union of left humerus and implants failure and implant was removed on

29.11.2014, plating + {ibular grafting and iliac crest bone grafting of left humerus was done by operation and X-rays showed fracture union. PW4 also deposed that the appellant has one inch shortening of left arm due to fracture. Ex.C1 is Photostat copy of discharge card which also shows that the appellant has one inch shortening of left arm.

18. The appellant filed Ex.A.8 disability certificate, in which the percentage of disability was mentioned as 88%. In the cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that he is not an Orthopaedic Surgeon and he has not seen the patient ald he is not the person to ,"""ITt e disability. He further stated a 11 NNR,J Macma 310 2020 that he put his signature on the certificate in the capacity of Chairman. Therefore, the Tribuna_l disbelieved the percentage of disability at 88ok as mentioned in Ex.A.S and the Tribunal had taken disability of the appellant at 5%.

19. As seen from the Ex.A8 Disability Certificate, it appears that petitioner has suffered permanent disability with regard to Left Upper Limb, impajred each, wealness of grip, and the evidence of PW.4 who is also a recognized Doctor clearly stated that appellant took treatment for non_union of left humerus and implants failure and implant was removed on 29.71.2014, plating + fibular grafting and iliac crest bone grafting of left humerus was done by operation and X_rays showed fracture union and the petitioner was treated at N.I.M.S. Hyderabad and Ex.Cl-discharge card, which clearly evident that the appellant has suffered permanent disability, but the ExA8 states that the appellant suffered ggyo disability,

20. In view of the above observation, this Court feels that the appellant has suffered permanent disability due to injury received in the accident, but ggvo of permalent 12 Vaomr-:fffi disability appears to be on higher side as PW.3 - deposed that appellant can perform work by kneeling and crouching and the appellant can perform work by bending and by sitting and standing arrd also by walking, hence by considering all the material on records, it can be safely concluded that appellant may find difficult to perform day to day activities including weakness of grip, which will impact the work of the appellalt, as the appellant work as Centering Labour who needs to stand, walk, sit on roof, iron/wood logs to perform day to day activities and also shortening of left arm due to fracture would also come under functional disability, which may cause inconvenience to the appellant in performing his job. in view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred in taking the disability of the appellant @ 5%o and the same ought to have taken @ 40% rather than 5%.

21. Accordingly, the petitioner income can be notionally taken as Rs.6,0OO/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon'ble Su' 'e Court in National I 13 NNR,J Macma 310 2020 Insurance Company Limited v. Prany Sethi and othersz and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jagdish v. Mohan and otherss In Jagdish v. Mohana, the Hon'lcle Supreme Court held as under: "In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranag Sethi's case, this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 4O% of the established income should be made where the age of the wictim at the time of the accident was below 40 years., Apart from the above judgment the Constitution Bench in Pranag Sethi's ccse, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and considering the age of the petitioner between 26 and 30 years, additional 4Oo/o of the incotne has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the petitioner. After applying the same, then, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,OOO/- + Rs.2,4OOl-). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.l,O0,8OO/- (Rs.8,aOO/- X 12). As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verrna o. Dethi 2 zo77 acJ 2too 3 (2078) 4 Supreme court cases 571 t (2018) 4 supreme Court Cases 571 t4 Macma I I NN'R ] Transport Corporations, and considering the age bf the appellant, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the appellant's age is '17'. Thus, the total loss of future earnings for computation of permanent disabitity would come to Rs.6,85,440l- (1,00,800/- x 17 * 4O%ol.

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, and considering the material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modifred and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Head Anount ari{yed at by the Trlbunal Amount arrived at by this Court l,oss of income Rs.9284O/- Rs.6,85,44O I-oss of earning for treatment period i.e., 9 Pain and Suffering Medical Expenses Extra Nourishrnent Tralsportation Total : Rs.7,O00/- Rs.30,OO0/- Rs.5,OO0/- Rs.5,OO0/- Rs.3,000/- Rs.92,840/- Rs. i2,600/- Rs.3O,OOO/- R6.5,OOO/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.3,OOO/- Rs.7,41,O4O s 2oo9 ACr 1298 (sc) i.t : r:' l5 NNR,J Macma ll0 2020 23, Thus, the appellant/claimant in all is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,4lrO4Ol- as against the awarded amount of Rs.92,840/- by the learned Tribunal 24, Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at

7.5 %o per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the t ( petitioners/ claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 "/o on the enhanced anount. Hence, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.7,41 ,O4Ol-.

25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in-part enhancing the compensation from Rs.92,840/- to Rs.7,4l,O4Ol- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty One Thousand and Forty Rupees onlyf with interest at the rate of 7.5 Yo p.a. on the enhalced compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the t6 Macma 3l }.TNR,J Orn0 appellant is permitted to withdraw the same. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REG]STRAR SECTION OFFICER l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal-cum-lllDistrictJudg-e_lt.Karimnagar Z. Onu CC io Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, Advocate [OPUC] 3. one CC to Sri V.Sambasiva Rao' Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies NVB/gh t t HIGH COURT DATED:1110712A25 uili(c -i' \ut r\t5 (. o a;) , CESF JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA:No.310 of 2020 THE MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 ] FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 310 OF 2020 Between: Y_agandla. Mallesh, S/o yellaiah, Ag-ed about 25 years, Occ. Labour, R/o. Murmoor Vittage of Ramagundam rMandar, rarimnigir biitirti Frli""try'i, Peddapalli District ...AppellanUpetitioner AND 4 5 6 $f ._Y_aslwalth,Enterprises, Godavarikhani, Rep. by its proprietor p.Devender Reddv. S/o Not knowx, Aged 40 yeirs, ivo. H.No.6_3_52, power House cotgny,.Godavarikhani or nimEgunalili4;;;"'i, xarimnaga-r-bistric[' Presently Peddapalll Diskict. United India lnsurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, H.No. 2_8_186, Floor No.1, MUKARAMPURh , xnntrrlruAcAn_sosooi ne'p. oy iisbirisiJnar Manager (Poticy No.052301t31 t11tO11OOOO484&vatiJ upto'et_6e_ZOt i), TSRTC), Musheerabad, Hyderabad. Rep. by its Managtng utrector ^r,1"^11-.9[_I9,(Now ...Respondents/Respondents Note: Respondent No.3 is not necessary party Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act,19gg against the order and decree in M.v.o.P.No.634 of 2013 dated.2slo9l2o.l g on the file- of the court or the Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- lll District Judge at Karimnagar. This appeal coming _on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the irateriai prp.o in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Ramachandar Rao vemuganti, Advocate for the Appeflant and sri V.sambasiva Rao, Advocate, appeared fo? ine Respondent No.2, and none appeared for the Respondent Nos.1 and 3. - 4{16:. ,,IJTF This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus appeal is allowed in part g284}t- to Rs.7,41,040/-' (RuPees Forty Rupees only) with interest at mpensation amount from the date of enhancing the compensation from Rs' Seven Lakshs Forty One Thousand and the rate of 7.5%o p.a on the enhanced co petition till the date of realization'

2. That the respondents are dtrected to deposit the said amount together with cotsandinterestaftergivingduecredittotheamountalreadydeposited,if any, within a period of two (2) months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same'

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' /ffrue CoPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To The tVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lll District Judge at Karimnagar' Two CD CoPies 1 2 NVB HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 DECREE MACMA.No.310 ot 2020 THE MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED l{ ?\