The High Court · 2025

Act, 1988 by the appellant/ petitioner aggrieved by th,: Award and decree dated 19.11.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.316 of 2016 by the Chairman, ,.\dditicnal Motor Accident Claims Tr bunal-Cum 1l Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial, (fcr short, 'the Tribuna-l') seekirrg <:ompensation of Rs.15,O0,000/- for the injuries sustained by the pet-itioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 24.O7.2016.

2. For the sake rf convenience, the parties will be hr:reinafter referred to as they are ara,red before the Tribunai.

3. The brief fzrct of the case is that appellant/ claimant frled M.V.O.P.No.316 o1 2016 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compenszrtion for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and neglig,:nt manner by the tipper bearing No.AP 15 X 0567. It is contended tl.rat :n 24.01.2O16, I I 2 ATR,.I MACMA No.316 of 2o2O the petitioner was going to his village Goilapalli on his TVS Champ Moped bearing No.AP l5 BJ 4955, when he reached the bypass road, Jagtial, the offending vehicle i.e., tipper lorry bearing No.AP 15 X 0567 carne from Daroor Village with high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner moped due to which the petitioner fell down on the road ald the left side front wheel of the tipper ran over on his right harrd, thereby the petitioner sustained crush injury and also received injuries on his head, right leg and other parts of the body, thereafter, the petitioner was immediately taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he was admitted as an inpatient on the same day i.e., on 24.OI.2OL6. On the complaint of the nephew of the petitioner, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 10 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code (lPC) and hled charge sheet under Section 338 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner has to undergone various surgeries, but the fracture was not reunited, due to nuero muscr-rlar deficit and \ .I\II{R,J l4AcMA No.316 oJ 2O2o the doctors advised for amputation of right hald of the p:titioner. The right hand of the petitioner was amputated and skin grafting was done and the petitioner incurred Rs.25,0OO/- for medicine and for clinical and laboratory tesls. The petitioner is said to be sulfering with 85% disability due to arr putation of his right hand. The further contention of the petitioner befor,: the learned Tribunal is that he was a sheep grower and seiler and he rvas also working as private welcter in Hanuman Welding Works at J agtial and used to earn Rs.20,0O0/- pe,r month. Due to the said accident and amputation of his right hand, the petitioner was unable to do eis day to day works as he was suffering with 85% permanent disabi ity and he was completely debarred from his employment. His employment was terminated, as the petitioner is incapable of discha:-ging his duties because welding is a skilled labor work. As such, the petitioner claims total t:orrrpensation of Rs.15,00,0OO/-. Tacrefore, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 the driver ald owner of offending vehicle bearing No.AP-15-X-0567 u'hich was insured by respondent Nos.3 & 4, all of them made jointly and se'zera1ly liable to pay the compensa ion. 4 MU{,J MACVA No.316 oI2O2O

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.l to 4 frled their counters denying their liabiiity and also denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the malner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 also submits that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid driving license and the owner of the offending vehicle violated the terms and conditions of policy, hence insurance company not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues lvhich read as under: "i) Whether the accid.ent occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driuer of tipper bearing NI.AP 15 X 0567 bg respondent No.1?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to clqim compensatton" If so, to what qmount dnd from whom?

5. To uhal relieP' 7 . After perusing the oral and documenta5r evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the -!--- 5 irlwJ WACAA No.s16 of 2O2O learned Tribunal allo,.ved the claim in part and grarted cornpensation of Rs.6,48,OOO/- along with interest @ 9o/o per annum.

8. Being unszrtir;fred and aggrleved by the meagcr :ompensation amount awarded b',, the learned Tribunal, the present app,eal is filed on the ground arnong olher grounds that the learned Tribunrrl having held that the accicleni ocr--urred due to the rash and negligr:nt driving of the driver of the Atrto, however not granted just compensatirn amount as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner himself got (:xanrined as PW. I and got marked E:r.l)l to P19 and proved that he has rec eived grievous injuries due to rlre srfd accident. The petitioner also examined PW.2, the doctor who treated him.

9. The petition()r was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and he was discharged from the said hospital on 01.03.2O16 with an advice to take cornplete bed rest. Learned counsel furth er argued that petitioner was unrtble to do day to day aJfairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that petitioner has suffered 857o of permanent dis lbility, but the learned Tribunal withrrut taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of I 6 ]V,.lF,J MACMA No.3r6 ol 2o2o Rs.6,48,000/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liabiiity on the respondents. Ex.P6 Discharge Summary and Ex.P19 disability Certifrcate issued by the Medial Board, clearly shorvs that petitioner sustained crushed injury to his right hand and accordingly the same is amputated.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony, ald awarded Rs.6r48rOOO/- 1n total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 7 IINR,.' NACMA I'b.316 o, 2o2O

13. Heard Sn A.lr.I(. S.Prasad, learned counsel lor t-re petitioner, Sri V.V.Ramana Rao irr:d Sri Harinath Reddg Soma, learrn,:d counsel for the respondents. Pe rtrsed the material on record.

14. Admittedll', r.:spondents have not hled cross-ay:peal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability o1' the respondents and occurrence of the accident. The only point tha. irrose before this Court in this appeal:-s that: i) Whether tl'Le petitioner is entitled for the enhanced conqcensation, if so, to uthot extenl ) Point No.1

15. The main qrievance of the petitioner before this Court is that the learned Tribunal did not considered the disability of the petitioner which occurred due to the said accident. As per the disabilitl' certificate issued by the PW3 i.e., Ix.A19 which discloses that the Med.cal Board has issued the disabilit5 certihcate assessing the disabilitr, @ B5%. To prove the same, the petitioner has examined PW3 who is a (loctor who has issued the said dis;ability certificate.

16. On perusal of cross examination, except suggestirrg that there is no disability of 85'Yo artd the sarne was assessed imploperly and the B l\n\&,J MACMA No.3r6 of 2O2O disability is not the permanent one. Nothing has been elicited from the cross examination of PW3. Whereas the in the chief examination of the PW3, he specifically stated that the disability certificate dated

20.04.2016 r.vas issued in relation to the right upper limb and post traumatic amputation and assessed the same at 85% of the disabiliry and it is said that it is a permanent one.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that as the disability has been proved by the petitioner by examining PW3 who is one of the Doctors/ rnembers of the Medical Board and he contended that as the petitioner was working as the welder in the PW4 Firm and also he was shepherd and he was also a sheep grower.

18. It is the contention of the respondents that the very evidence of PW4 who specifically admitted that there are three to four workers working in the shop and he used to pay a-round Rs.4,0O0/- to Rs.8,0O0/- according to the ski1ls of ttre persons. He also stated that at the time of appointment, the petitioner was paid Rs.9,OOO/- per month and his salar5r was enhanced to Rs.13,5OO/- in November 2015 and that he was appointed as a permanent employee. He also accepted that ( a 9 l\11\lR,J MActqA No.316 of 2O2O Ex.P1B was issued by him. The main contention of the respondents is that as the PW4 hirnself has admitted that he used to pay Rs.4,000/- to Rs.8,OOO/- to thosc rvho are working under him. Though il is contended that he is not pa1.ir g anything more than that bul infact it is not elicited in the cross examination as to the same. It is specifically stated by PW4 he was paying R,;.9,O00 to the petitioner and it was enhance to Rs. 13,500/-. On p--rusal of cross examination, except. contending that he has not producr:d the register of payment of salary anC there is also no labour license is obtained ald that he did not lile an'7 document to show that he is mnning the welding shop, except the same, nothing has been elicited to suggest that the petitioner was not payirrg Rs. 13,50O/- to PWl and it is also elicited in the cross examination that in a shop the skilled worker rr,'il do the work of welding, measuring the grills and gates and also do the grinding works. It is suggested tha; the petitioner was not a skilled ',r'orker and that he is unskilled worl:er, which was denied by the pe titioner. This would show that the petitioner was working with the gru-4 and the learned Tribunal has right$ assessed the income of the pe titioner at Rs.13,5OO/- by considerinig the evidence I 10 ,ltvR,J MACUA No.3t6 of 2o2o placed by the petitioner i.e., Ex P1B and this court is not inclined to interfere with the said frnding of income.

19. Coming to the aspect of the assessment of the disability arrd au,arding compensation basing on the disability. In the present case the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,43,000/- under the head of loss of income due to disability. On perusal of the finding of the learned Tribuna,l at page 12 ol the judgment at paragraph No.lB the learned Tribunal has held that as per the evidence of PWl as he u,as suffering from B57o disability and he was completely debarred from employment, considering the evidence of PW3 who issued EX-P19 certihcate, she pointed out and deposed by the PW3 the disabiliry is a permanent one, accepting the same the leafned Tribunal has held that though the petitioner was not able to do the professional work, but for sheep growing and working as shepherd and selling business will not CAUSC any disability to the petitioner. and therefore loss of income during the course of treatment ald for follow up treatment was assessed one year six months and awarded Rs.2,43,000/-, but the finding which is given by the Tribunal to be incorrect as the PW4 specifically stated -- 11 ]VIVR,J MAcrlA No.3l6 oI 2O2O that the disability is of 85%. The petitioner herein has lost his right hand due to the arrputation. Though the disability u,hich is assessed by the PW4 may cioes not have impact on his entire body to assess the functional disab i lit y.

20. Admittedly, ,:ven if this Court comes to conclusion and take the petitioner as a welder and doing welding work the learned counsel for the respondents v,:hemently argued and referred to the crtmplaint which is lodged before the police, wherein the petitioner:'s avocation was mentioned as a shepherd and a sheep grower and nowhere it is mentioned as a welder. Even if we take the contention of the respondents to be true, the person with a single hand / emputated hand obviously would have some disabilit5z in functioning oi his avocation. Even if we take it as a shepherd or a sheep grower, the role of the other hand would a-lso be equally necessary and the functionrilit5r of the work he has to do may be as a shepherd will have an impact C.ue to the loss of the hand which the learned Tribunal has last cited. Admittedly, there being an arnputation, though the learned Tribunal dic. not considered the disability, in view of the circumstances stated above the functional I I 12 .na8,J WCMA 1.to.316 of 2o2o disability has to be taken at 50% considering the amputation and by taking income of the petitioner at Rs.13,500/- as monthly income. This court u,ould like to venture and assess the disability taking it as permanent in nature u,hich wouid cause loss of future income, considering the same, this court would like to venture upon reassessilg the income of the petitioner i.e., Rs.13500 x 12 |,62,000/- as the petitioner is aged about 5O years adding 257o towards future prospects i.e., Rs.1,62,000 + 40,500 = 2O25OO x 50% = 1,O1,250 x 13 multiplier total comes to Rs.13,16,250/- is future prospects and taking the loss of income of the petitioner during the treatment @13500 x 3 = 40,500/-. 2 1 . Keeping all other amounts intact as awarded under different heads i.e., medical expenses Rs.25,000/-, towards pain and sufferance Rs.1,50,0O0/-, the loss of amenities and enjoyment at Rs. 1,50,O0O/-, Rs.20,000/- towards special diet, Rs.2O,O00/- towards transportation charges and Rs.40,000/- towards attendant charges.

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitied to enhancement of \ 13 ^'NR,J MACMA No-316 oJ 2o2O compensation as mo(lified and recalculated as above and:Ls given in the table below for eas5' reference. Hea i I I-oss of income during treatmerrt Future prospec /l)ss of income due to c isirbilit Trans ortation Ch Mcdical B llr cial diet S pain and suff:rrrnce loss of amenitres and enjo]'rne rt attendarlt ct arges Tolal I I I Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Arnourt arrived at by I this cou.rt Rs.2,43,OOO/ - Rs.20,O0O/ Rs.25,OO0/ - Rs.20,OOO/ - Rs. 1,50,OO0/- Rs.40,liOO/- Rs...3,1(;,25Ol- Rr; 20,\ )00 Rr; 25,! )00 R:; 2o,( )o0 Rrt.5(),r)OO/- Rs. 1,50,O00/- 1,50,( 00/- Rs.40,oOO/ RJ.4O,100/- Rs.6,48,OOO/ Rs. 16,4r],75Ol- I I

23. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation 1l'orn Rs.6,48,000/- to Rs. 16,43,75O / - (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Forty Three Thousand and Seven Hundred anci Fifty Rupees Only) with the interest of 7 .5o/o on the enhancird amount of compensation frorn the date of petition till the date of r,:a,Iization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said arnount togr:ther with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount a1ready deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt ol' a copy of this t4 ,v,W,{r MACMA No.3r6 ol 2O2o judgment. on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs

24. Miscellaleous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed' //TRUE COPY// SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR @ SECTION OFFICER To, 1

2. 3. 4. 5. KH/gh The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial. (with records, if any) One CC to Sri. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to Sri V.V.Ramana Rao, Advocate {OPUCI One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] Two CD Copies 4, I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:31/071201t.5 91Al-E l, ,'Fl o() rrs$ rffi t ,',Ee t)N ..,J JUDGMENT+)EiCFIE E [ 2 DRAFTS ] MACMA.No.316 ,cf 2020 I I I PARTLY ALLOWII.IG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS )1 b I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE [ 3443 ] PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3'16 OF 2O2O Between: Mothuku Mallaiah, S/o. Mallaiah, aged about 50 yrs, Occ - Wejder, R/o. Gollapally Village, H/o.Veldurthy Village, Jagtial (M) Karimnagar Dist. ...Appella nUPetitioner AND

1. Pentala Venkanna, S/o. Mallaiah, Age- 33 years, Occ- Driver, R/o. Kundanapally (V), Karimnagar District.

2. Penjarla Bala Mallaiah, S/o. Yellaiah, aged about 50 yrs, Owner of Tipper, Rlo.2-461D, Kodurupaka (v) Boinpally (M), Karimnagar Dist.

3. It/l/s. Shrirama General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Office at EB, EPIP, RIICO lndustrial area, Sitapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan State, rep. by its Manager.

4. M/s. Shrirama General lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Br.Office at 8-6-396, Kothirampur, Hyderabad road, Opp.to L And T Tractor Show room, Karimnagar Town, Telangana State. (R-1 here in is not necessary party) ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 198B againstlhe Order and decree in M.V.O P.No. 136/16 dated. 1911112019 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial. 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. A.V.K.S. Prasad, Advocate, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V.V. Ramana Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4 and Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed;

2. That the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal be and hereby enhanced fronr Fls.6,48,000/- to Rs.'16,43,750/- (Rupees Sixteren Lakh Forty Three Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifb/ Rupees Only) v,tith the interest of 7.5%p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from tha date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the respordents be and hereby dircted to deposit tha said amount together with costs and and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited. if any, within a period of two months f'rm the receipt of a copy of this Judg ment;

4. That on such deposit, that the petitioner be and hereby permilted to withdraw the same withou t furnishing any surety;

5. That save as afc resaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribrnal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall oe no order as to costs in this appeal- //TRUE COPY// '?;J;ifllli'i:t,[iRil .,^ '7 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, [\4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll A,lditional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagitial. (with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies KH/gh W 1 I I i I HIGH COURT DATED:31/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.lt16 ol i:020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. \s