High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.No.243 oF 2021 JUDGMENT: This zLppeal is hled by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 18. 12.2OIg in M.V.O.p.No. 1g of 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_V Additional District Judge at Adilabad (for short ..the Tribunal,,).

2. For conv,:nience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3' The case of the petitioner before the Tribu.ral is that on O4.O2.2O18 at about 21:30 hours at SH.No.1 at Gollaguda Stage near Indranagar Village, the lorry bearing No.Ap 07_TH 3466 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor bike c,f t.he deceased, as a result he fell down, sustained grievous injuries and was shifted to Governme,nt Hospital, Asifabad. After which, he was shifted to Apollo Reach Hospital, Karimnagar orr OS.O2.2olg, wherein he underrvent further treatment arrd that he incurred expenditure of Rs.5O,O00/_ towards his tr.eatment. It is his case that he was aged 3O years and was',@rking as police Constable, earning Rs.35,351/ per month and that due to the said injuries sustained in the accident. he ) I I l i l 2 MACMA No.243- .i ':r received permanent disability. Thus, he ciaimed Rs 6,00'O00/- towards compensation

5. The respondent Nos'1 and 2 remained ex-parte' The respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the Insurance Company i'e', the Branch Office and Head Ofhce of the Insurance Company, they filed a joint counter, denied the case of the petitioner with regard to his age, earnings and also they denied the occurrence of accident' They further contended that there is no rash and negligence of the 1orry driver and that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the bike rider. They further contended that the lorry was not having permit and fitness certificate as on the date of the accident and therefore, denied their iiability to pay compensation' 6 Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:-

1. Whetler the injuies caused to the petitioner due to rash and negligent diuing of the diuer of the lorry No.APO7TH3466? 2

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation' If so, to uhat amount and from uhom? To what relief ? # - l::!.=:,a:rrR-$6*E 3 ETO,J MACMA No.243 2021

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pW1 and Exs.Al to h1l were marked. On behalf of the respondents no evidence vgas aCduced.

8. Based or. the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.60,000/ - as againsL the claim of Rs.6,O0,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancemcnt.

9. Heard Sr. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner ancl Sri S. SaBrznsn6l Rao, learned counsel for responclent Nos.3 and 4

10. The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a very low compensation and the injured has incurred heairy expenditure toq,ards treatmenl and th at he also suffered permanent disability which the Tribunal has failed to consider and that the Tribunal has not granted :rny amounts under the heacs of Transport Charges, pain ancl Suffering and Extra nourisl-rnrent etc. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation .

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted thert 1.he Tribunal has awarded jus[ compensation and that the petiti,rner being a Government Employee, his medical bills 4 MACMA No.243 were reimbursed altd thus no more arnount can be granted towards compensation. He therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frarnes the following points for determination

1. Wtrcther the cloimants are entitled for enhancement of compensation as praged for?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tibunol need ang interkrence?

3. To tthat relteJ? i3. Point No.1: a) To prove his case, the injured petitioner got examined himself as PW 1 and got marked the attested copies of the documents. In his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not hled any disability certilicate and that he has not filed arry proof to show that he has spent Rs.5O,0O0/- towards hospital and medical expenses. b) A perusal of the exhibits shows that all the documents are the attested copies and Ex.A10 shows that he is working in the Police Department as a Constable. Ex.A9 is the salary certihcate of the petitioner. It is the common knowledge that every Government Employee is entitled for reimbursement of medical expenses and one has to submit the original bills to claim the said expenses. The - t) .: ';i4i' 't#orl T I J 5 ETD,I MACMA No.243 2021 petitioner has not assigned any other reason for not hling the original docurtents. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner got his medical bills Ieimbursed to the Department and lherefore, he has filed attested ,:opies of the documents in support of his case. No Doctor is e::anrined to prove the treatment underwent b5. him and the medical e>.penses incurred by him. A perusal of Ex.A2/lnjury Certificate r,:ve.als that the petitioner sustained four simple injuries and one grievous injury and that he was given F.irst Aid and referred to lliplher Centre for further management. A perusal of trx.A7 which is the Discharge Summary of Apoll<_r Reach Hospital, shows that he was admitted on 05.02.2O1g and discharged on 12.O2.2OlB and was diagnosed with head infury, polytrauma, l>rachial plexus injury (Neuroprexic), alcohol withdrawal and facial laceration. The fracture of posterror aspect of bilateral 1"r rib(j was managed conservativeiy and that psychiatrist consultation \ /as taken for alcohol withdrawal, and chest physiotherap.y, v,as done during the course of the treatment in their hospital. Ex.A8 is the medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon showing that he needs thirty days of leave for restoration of his health. Four such medical certilicates are issued on 05.02.201t3, t7.03.2O18, 06.04.2018 and 05.06.2018. The said doctor is not examined to prove the certificates issued by him. since, no doctor is examined, the mode of treatment underwent by closed 6 MACMA NO.243-2 him and the medical expenses incurred by him are not proved by the petitioner. However, he being a Government Employee, the medical bills might have been reimbursed and since the attested copies of biils are filed, the same cannot be taken into consideration, to award any amounts under the heads of medical expenses. He sustained four simple injuries and one grievous injury and was hospitalised for one week. Considering the evidence on record, an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- towards pain and suffering is awarded. c) Since, he is a Government Employee, he is entitled to medical leave and no loss of earnings would be incurred during such period of absence, but it would have impact on the encashment of the Earned kave. Though the petitioner claims to have sustained disability, he has not filed any such certiflcate' He has not even frled the Leave Application submitted by him, to prove that he was away from duty for the said period of six months' The medical certihcates frled by him under Ex'A8 do not aid the petitioner in any way to prove that he was absent from duty for four months, so no Ioss of earnings can be awarded to the petitioner. Though the medical expenses are bound to be reimbursed, d) the additional expenditure cannot be denied to the petitioner' It is 1\ '2/4? r I I I I I a ,/ 7 ETD,] MACMA No.243 2021 the common observation that a person who is il1 needs someone to attend and also that an amount towards transportation, extranoursihrtent, attendant charges etc., is required to be au,arded. Hence, in view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the inprat ent treatment underwent by him-lor a period of one u,eek, it is c,pined that awarding an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- tou,ards trans cortation, extranourishment, attendant charges etc., would be ap,prrpriate. e) It is held that the petitioner is entitled to an amounr of Rs.80,O00/ , v.'hile rhe Tribunal has granted Rs.6O,000/_. Hence, the compens;ation amount is enhanced by Rs.20,000/-. Point l\o, 1 is answered accordingly.

74. Point No. In viev' o" the finding arrived at point No. 1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified by enhancing the r:ompensation from Rs.6O,OOO/_ to Rs.SO,OOO/_ I'oint No.2 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.3 In the res,ult, the MACMA filed by the appellants is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 7g.12.2O19 in 8 MACMA No,243 ,,'.:: :t M.V.O.P.No.18 of 2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Adilabad, enhancing the compensation from 60,000/- to 80,00O/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7 .5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.3 is 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 appeai, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHO. ISMAIL DEPUTYREGTSTRAR G. SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, t\ilotor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum v Addl District Judge, Adilabad (wlthout records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. SATYANANDA RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \qa HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ATS\ stl rs 1 /-l ..= !) () '::. ..I ,:.$,frr. . r.t. ., tl: _ ORDER / 5u t>eruevt MACMA.N o.243 of 2021 i l I I I I I i ! t I I I I I I I j PARTLY ALI.,OWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS GL9 n<",utrr.-ap [ 3444 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACC IDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 243 OF 2021 Between: Gadi Santhosh Kumar, S/o. Gadi Shankar, Constable, RJo. Native of Pochamma tsastnr, Ai,rjoio bistrict Presently resing at H'No' Adilabad Aqe. 40 years, Occ. Police Kataznaqar. Kumarambheem s-isatqi. Teachers ColonY, ...ApPellanUPetitioner AND

1. Anwar Khan S/o. Tanbeer Khan,Age. 30, occ. Driver of Lorry bearing No. AP ' bi ii-a+oo, Fl/o. D.No. 1-14-364, Kousar Nagar' Balaji Nagar', near, -, vbntateswara Temple, Kagaznagar ' Kumarambheem Asitabad Dlstrlct' 2. MaramReddy Sambireddy, S/o Subba [e!!y, Aoe N/aior' Occ Owner of Lorry bearinq r.ro. np-"o7inl'eq6q Fy". o G1'15i18t112t1.3rd line, I\ilaruthi Nag-ar Old, Guntur, Guntur District' - 3.TheNewlndiaASsUranCeCompanyLimited,Representedbyits.Divisional Manager, Divisional office, 3rd, Qqklf 993pl91 R'R Apparao street' Viiuvi-*abr. (Policv valid from 30 03 2017 to 29 03'2018)

4.TheNewlndiaAssuranceCompanyLimited,RepresentedbyitsBranch Manager, Branch office, Adilabad. . Respondents/ResPondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of fVlotor Vehicles Act,,t98B against the Order and deciee in M.V.O.P.No.18 OF 20'19 daled. 18t12t2020 on the file of the Court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal --cum- V Additional District Judge, Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of D"c."" of the Tribunal and the material papers in appeal, the judgment irid urriop and-upon hearing rhe arguments of SRt s SURENDER REDDY, eJvocate for the Appellants and None Appeared, Advocate for the Respondent No.,l and No 2 and'b sarylruaruDA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and 4. "nI This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil. tr/iscellaneous appeal be and hereby is par y g!9y"d' modifying the order and Decree dated 18.12.2019 in r\4.V.o.f.No.'1a of 2019 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Adilab,ad, enhancing the compensation from 60,000/_ to gO,000/- and the enhanced a mount of corhpensation shafl carry interest @ 7 .5% per annum from the date o1'claim petition till realization.

2. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited_

3. That the Res;pondent No.3 is 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 arready deposited. 4. That on sucrr deposit, the appelant is be and hereby eniifled to withdraw the said amounl w thout furnishing any security 5- That save as af,resaid, the decree of the Tribunar Sha[ stands confirmed in all other respects; ,and

6. That there be nc order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUryREGISTRAR e- SECTION OFFICER The Chairman, MotorAccidents Claims Tribunal _ cum V Addl District Judge, Adilabad (without records, if any) Two CD Copies To, 1 2 \q- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 t t ORDER JDe'cy,,tL= MACMA.No.243 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING TIIE MACMA WITHOUT C]OSTS q ,qI"-L .&"