The High Court · 2026

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is filed under Section 1.,.., of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant a[ grieved by the Order and decree dated 25.06.2019 passed in O.F. rto.455 of 2OL4 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claimr; Tribunal_cum_ Judge, Famiiy Court-cum-Vll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short "the Tril unal,,) seeking enhancernent of the compensation.

2. For convenience, the parties wiil be her: nafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3

Brief facts of the case are as follows : On O9.lO.2Ol4, at about g.3O a.m., thc claimant was proceeding from Zaheerabad to A1ipur on his 1../S motorcycle bearing No.TS 15 ATR 6326 and when he -eached near Siddivinayaka oir Mil on National High way No.65 ir the rimits of Zaheerabad, the driver of the Eicher vehicle bearin; No.Ap_2g_y_ 9514 drove the same in a rash al.rd negligent manrL, r and dashed .- X-q*l \ \.' 2 I{NR,J M.A-C.M.A.No.337 oF 2O2O \ against the TVS motorcycle of the claimant' due to which' the claimant fell down and received grievous injuries' He was shifted to the Government Hospital, Zatreetabad' for treatment and thereafter, he rvas shifted to Holistic Hospital' Nizampet X Road' Kukatpally, Hyderabad, wherc he took treatment for his injuries and also und.erwent operation' The Police registered a case in Cr.No.275 of 2Ol4 against the rider of the offending vehicle for the offence punishable undei Section 338 of Indian Penal Code' The claimant was an agriculturist and was also suPPlYing the construction material and was earning Rs'15'OO0/- per month' Due to accid.ent, he is unable to do any work as he has sustained permanent disability' Therefore' the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs' 1O'0O'000/-'

4.Thel"trespondentistheowneroftheoffendingvehicle, the2.drespondentistheinsuranceCompanyandthe3.d respondent is ttre driver of the offending vehicle' A11 of them are made liable for payment of compensal ion ' 3'd respondent remained expa-rte ' The 1't ald 2"d 5. The respondent hled their sepa-rate counters denying all the averments made^in the claim petition' including the manner rn J ]VNR,J M.t,- :-M.4.No.337 OF 2O2O which the accident took place, age, avocation arc income of the petitioner so also the treatment taken by the clz imant. It is further contended that the compensation claimed s excessive and there is also breach of traffic rules and the ,l .iver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving lir,t nse at the time of accident and as such prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Triburr Li has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the ciaimant sustained injuries in ar to rash and negligent driving of the driver o1 bearing No.AP 28 Y 9514? accident due licher vehicle

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for comper.sation, if so, what extent and from whom?

3. To what reliefl) 7 . To prove the claimant's case, pWs. 1 to 4 were :xamined and marked Exs.Al to A12 ald Ex.C.1. No oral evidenc: was adduced on behalf of the respondents, only Ex.Bl-copy of he insurance policy u,as marked. 4 JVNR,J M -A.c-M. A- No. 33 7 OF 2O2O

8. After considering the oral and documentaqr evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal came to conciusion that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and, accordingly, awarded an amount of Rs.2,23,109/- with interest @ 7.5o/" per annum from the date of petition till the date of rea-lization to be paid by the respondents and partly allowed the claim petition. Challenging the sarne, the petitioher filed the present appeal seeking enhancement.

9. Heard both sides and perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Tribuna-l ought to have awarded Rs.10'0O,000/- compensation as claimed by the claimalt. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have noted that the PW-2 the Doctor, who had treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant was admitted in their hospital on 09. lO.2Ol4 and discharged on 13.10.2014 and he also admitted that the claimant underwent operation and readmitted to their hospital on O3.O2.2O17 atd discharged on O4.O2'2O17 for removal of implant. He also contended that Ex A- 1O is the S_ 5 LI.l =.M-A-No.337 ,vim,J OF 2O2O disability certificate as per Ex.A. 1O the claimanr. has sustained disability @ 35%, but the learned Tribunal did rr t consider the said disability certificate on the ground that there \\ 1s no. mention, whether it is permanent disability or partial disabi ity. In fact the doctor who had treated the claimant and who t ad issued the disability certificate had clearly stated that the cla;r rant sustained permanent disability of 35%. 1 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further :ontended that learned Tribunal ought to have taken note of the er .dence of Pw-3 who was a physiotherapist and who had deposed tlr Lt the claimant took physiotherapy treatment in his Hospital as p: - Ex.A- 1 1, but the learned Tribunat .erroneously not considered I on the ground that in claim petition as well as ch r claimant has not mentioned about the said x.A- 1 1 merely f a-ff,rdavit, the physiotherapy treatment. Further, the learned Tribunal did nc r consider the evidence of PW-4 and a-lso the transportation bills is ;ued by PW-4, due to the said accident, the claimant had visited .. Le Hospital for follow up treatments periodically. The learned Tr Lt awarded just compensation under other heads; anI ,unal has not therefore, the f- \ \l ....i 6 NJVR,J Ifi .A-C.M.A. No.337 OF 2O2O arnount awarded by the learned Tribunal is very meager and unjustifiable Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that l2 after consid.ering the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation' which needs no interference

13. Having heard. the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of entire material placed on record and also the record of the trial court, it is admitted fact that there is no cross appeal preferred by the respondent-insurance company or by any other respondents being aggrieved by the compensation awarded' lt is not in dispute as to ttre involvement of the said Eicher vehicle and also the said Eciher vehicle belongs to the respondent No'1 and respondent No.2 being the insurance company' who had insured the vehicle. t4. It is also not in dispute that the accident occurred and the involvement of the offending vehicle and also the TVS motorcycle on which the petitioner/ claimant was proceeding from Zaineerabad to Alipur. It is also not in dispute that a crime was registered and it was observed a"i"'-g'*tt" course of investigation by the 7 AIIYR,J M.,l ;,L|.A.No.337 OF 2O2O concerned police that the said accident occurred c.r re to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3. As 11 ere being no rebuttal evidence placed by the respondents in espect of the accident and the nature of the accident and he rash and negligence on the part of the respondent No.3 and rs such it can be safely concluded that respondent No.3 is respr nsible for the said accident.

15. It is evident from the record that petitioner. sustained the injuries in the said accident. As per E discharge summary u.herein it is specifically sta,, three compound fracture of mid shaft tibia ri,q proximal tibia commuted displaced fragmance and wound middle l/3ra of the right tibia 6x6/z right rr the tibia and middle fibula. As per the injury cerl issued on 09. 1O.2014, the said injuries are grievor r is also evident from the record and the exhibits man< and documentary evidence, it is clear that the claime treatment in Sri Sri Holistic Hospital wherein he rs one Dr.Venkat Ram prasad Vellamshetla ald there regarding the expenses incurred by the claimant for claimant has x.A-5 i.e., the d that grade rt and right t is lacerated iddle 1/3.a of ficate, trx.A3 in nature. It :d by the oral et obtained a rs treated by s no dispute m amount of 8 N}IR,J M.A.C.M-A.No.337 OF 2O2O X'r'-'*t \r\ \ ,-. \ - Rs.1,OB,7O9/- towards the treatment and also towards the medicine and as against the medical bills submitted as Ex'A-8 so aiso the amount of Rs.25,OO0/- whicl-r is under Ex'A-9'

16. It is the case of the petitioner/claimant that the learned Tribuna-l ought to have considered the payment of charges for the physiotherapy which was worth Rs'50'O0O/-' but the learned Tribunal had disbelieved the incurring of the said amount of Rs.5O,O00/- and the sarne was rejected by the learned Tribunal on the ground that the said fact of obtaining of physiotherapy was not pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition' so also as there was no mention in the chief affidavit filed by the claimant that he underwent physiotherapy treatment under Pw'3 and in the absence of there being no pleadings in the chief affidavit' the learned Tribunal did not chose to consider t he said bills rvhich were claimed on the ground that claimant obtained physiotherapy treatment. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said finding for the reason that, it appea-rs that the petitioner as an after thought has produced the said bills' 17 . On perusal of the evidence of Pw- I chief a-ffidavit' except filing the original payment receipt of physiotherapy of eight in -.- *"4,4 9 tv1!R,J M-4.( M-4.No.337 OF 2O2O numbers, no oral evidence has been placed before _ Lis Court and the original rent receipts of the car twentSr irr number for Rs.20,000/-, but the learned Tribunal did not conri ler the same and awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- under tLt head of the transportation, though the petitioner has visitec the Sri Sri Holistic Hospital on the following dates 09.10.20i.l

13.70.20t4, t6.IO.20t4, t8.1t.2014, 09.12.20t4, O2.O2.20t5,

14.05.2015,

10.06.2015 and 28.07.2O15, and as such this Cc rrt is of the opinion that the petitioner would be entitled for z n amount of Rs.2O,OOO/- instead of Rs.i0,OO0/ towards transpcu tation. As far as, award of compensation towards extra nourishrr :nt, I do not find aly ground to interfere with the sarne as the iezr ned Tribunal has already awarded an amount of Rs.10,OOO f - towt rds the extra nourishment. The learned Tribunal has also awarde 1 al amount of Rs.1,63,109/- towards the medical bills which r he petitioner said to have incurred for the treatment and which. i , also said to have been certified by the said Doctor.

18. Coming to the aspect of disability. It is th : case of the petitioner that, he has sustained disability of 35% arr I relied upon the evidence of the Pw-2, Doctor, who has treated I re petitioner. .- \- t--?iti \'l.\: 10 AIIVR,J M,A,C.M.A.No.337 Of 2o2o \ Ex.A-l0-Disability Certificate, which the petitioner claims that he has sustained 35% of the disability. Considering the Ex.A-10, issued by Dr.Venkat Ram Prasad Vellashetla, who is said to have treated the petitioner, has issued the said certificate on

13.11.2018, wherein he stated that the petitioner has sustained injury to the right lower limb with grade 3b compound fracture of tibia and he was operated ald was under his treatment as outpatient basis arld on assessment he is having a disability of 35%. In the disability Certificate it is mentioned that the petitioner sustained permanent disability of 35oh, as the petitioner has deformed right knee which is painful and limits his day to day activity and presently there is no treatment necessarlr', but in long run he need sorne necessa,ry procedures.

19. In cross examination before the Tribunal, it is elicited that Ex.A- 10 is not in the form of disability certificate and the said letter does not speak about type of disability i.e., whether it is permanent or partial disabitity ald the learned Tribunal has disbelieved the same on the ground that as the same was not mentioned that the said disability is permanent or partial and as /YIVR,J M.A.(., t.A.No.337 OF 2o2o such the sarne was not considered arrd the claim of t ee petitioner under the permanent disability was rejected.

20. No doubt, the doctor who has treated the p :titioner can issue the disability certificate and assess the disit rility. In the present case, the said disability certificate canno: be brushed aside solely on the ground that it is not mentioned rhether it is permanent or partial disability. Even taking it is a partial disability, the Tribunal ought to have granted just c rmpensation under the head of functional disability, as the J,r titioner was working as an agriculturist and also supplying construction material and the said disability would have impact r n the future earning capacity of the petitioner. Hence, this Cc r .rt is of the opinion that the petrtioner can be granted compensat on by taking the partial disability AD 20 o/o.

21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhw a as. State of Bihart, where it is stated that in the absence of suclL documentar5r proof with regard to income of the petitioner and wh: .e there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can I ) reasonably '1 2001(8) SCC 197 t2 ]VNR,J M. A. C.M.A. No. 3 3 7 oF 2O2O estimated arrd assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts,

22. Hence considering the ground realities and the age of the petitioner as 36 years who was hale and health at the time of accident and by following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wadhua's case (cited supra), this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ',vould obviously earn Rs. 150/- per day by doing agricultural work or any other odd job accordingly, the income of the petitioner can be notionally taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited Vs. Pranag Sethi and others2 and considering the age of the petitioner as 36 years which is not disputed by either of the parties, additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospect to the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs.6,3OO/ (Rs.a,5OO/- + Rs. 1,800/-). The annual income of the petitioner rvould come to Rs.75,60O/- (Rs.6,30O/- X l2). Thus the loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 2Oo/" would come to Rs.15,I2O l- ?5,600 x 2Oo/"). '2otl ACJ 2'too l3 A'IVR,J M.A C M.A.No-337 OF 2O2O

23. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in tl : judgment of the Apex Court in Sarlc Venna a, Del,\i Transport Corporations, and considering the age of the pr: itioner as 36 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the 6 :titioner's age group between 35-40 years is '17'. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.2,57,04O/- (l5,I2O x 1'z and keeping the compensation awarded under the other heads ; ttact and the same need not be disturbed.

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadingr; material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Suprert: Court in the decision cited (supra). This Court is of the op I ion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensatr( n as modified arld reca-lculated and for the reasons stated above ar d given in the table below for easy reference. Head ArnouDt arrived at by the Tribunal Amount rrrived at by this Court [,oss of future earning on account of disability Transportation Extra Nourishment Medical Expenses Pain and Sufferance Total '2009 ecJ 1298 (sc) 10,000/ 1O,OOO/- 1,63,109 /- 40,0OO/- Rs.2,23,1O9 / Rs 2,57,O4O/- o,000 / - o,o00/- 63,109 /- ro,oo0/- R:r. 4,8O,149/- t4 M{R,J M.A- C.M.A. No, 3 3 7 of 2O2O I

25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,23,109 l- to Rs.4,8O,t49l- (Rupees Four Lakh Eighty Thousand and One Hundred Forty Nine Rupees only) with 7.5 ok p.a. inertest 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 two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitied to withdrarv the entire compensation amount without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. To, SO/. T.SRINIVASAREDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The lVotor Vehicle Accidents family Court-Cum-Vll Addl. District Sang areddy. (with records if any) Claims Tribunal-Cum-Judge & Sessions Judge Medak at

2. One CC to SRl. Palle Sriharinath, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies JA\PSL riii: ( l7 rtB 202[ 1 I HIGH COURT DATED 02t]5l2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No 337 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED. o IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABA FRIDAY THE SECOND DAY oF IVIAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 337 OF 2020 Botween Mohammad Anwar,, S/o Shahbuddin, Aged 36 years, Occ- Agriculture and construgtion material supplier, R/o. Machhoor Viliage, Mandal Jharasangam, Medak Dist. AppellanUClaimant AND Halge Lalappa, S/o. Dhulappa, Aged 41 years, Occ- Mechanic, Owner of Eicher Bearing No AP-28 Y-9514, R/o. H.No. 12-7-133t589, Habeebnagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad 2 J M/s. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd.,, Through its Manager, Sagar Plaza, Fourth Floor, Abids, Hyderabad-28. Vemula Madhusudhan Rao,, S/o, Koteshwar Rao, Aged 48 years, Occ- Driver of Eicher bearing No AP-28Y-9514, No. 14:1-209/265, parvath Nagar, Borabanda, Hyderabad. (The respondents 1 &3 are not necessary parties in this Appeal) ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.V_O. P. No.45512014 dated 2510612019 on the file of the Court the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Judge family Court-Cum-Vll Addl. District & Sessions Judge Medak at Sangareddy. _ ORDER:This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and-the material Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P.Srihari Nath, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows' 1 That the MACMA is allowed in part' by enhancing. ti ( compensation -'fi;.;'bdi';'gl:' -.fo r Lakh Eishtv rrom Rs.2,23,10e/- to Thousand and one nuno 'ei"to-rtiliine-iupdes 2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the said i mount together with costs and interest:f[';?lfis dl'E"L"iit'to-tn" r"nount already deposited, if any. wrthrn iil; ili;;i'ht-f'J'n tn" o't" of r rceipt of a copy of this Judgment; 3. That on such deposlt' the petitioner is entitled to..wi t draw the entire " ii'i'p""tlt,"n aniount without furnishing any surety: 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal 'onty) witll 7 5% p-a [Rupees ' SD/- T.SF NIVASAREDDY ASSISTT NT REGISTRAR (:,7 //TRUE COPY// SE ]TION OFFICER t l t' To, fi ' "oof "'r1 ;ili ,'i]fi ,,, BBl,".l- Sang'ateddV twith records if anY) ".X?U Two CD Copies 1 2 JAlPSL Claims Tri unal-Cum-Judge a- Sessions , udge Medak at HIGH COURT DArEO.02lO5t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.337 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED *