The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.262 0F 2021 This zrppeal is filed b-y the claimant, aggrieve;d by the order and Decrer: dated 1g.12.2o19 in M.v.o.p.N o.Trr or 2o16 passed by the chairman, the Motor Accident claims 'rribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabacl (for short ,.the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal was that on

18.10.2015 at. aboul 19:30 hours, the petitioner went to suryapet on a motor bike bearing No.AP-24-Ap-8867 along with a pillion rider to purchase Mirchi crop Pesticides and while he was returning to his village, when they reached D.Kothapally village, they stoppeci their vehicle to attend to nature call ancl they were standing at the mot.or bike 'uvhir;h was parked by the side of the road. During that time the rider of the motor bike bearing No.TS- 05-Fltl-8454 which 'ul,as going from Suryapet has dri'zen it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, Iost the control over the vehicle and dashed the petitioner's bike, due to which both of them fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately the petitioner was ,/t I 2 TTD,J MACMA No.262_2021 shifted to Tirumalagiri, Gayathri Hospital and after taking first aicl, he was shifted to Health care Hospital. Thus, the petitioner has incurred huge expenditure and sought a corhpensation of Rs.7,00,0OO/-. 4 The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex_parte 5' The respondent No 2 filed countgl denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of ttre accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of thc polic.y' It is further contended that the petition is bad for non- joinder of the owner and insurer of bike and that there was contributory negrigence on part of the rider of bike bearing No. Ap- 24-AP-8867. 6- Based on the above ri.rar contentions, the Tribunar has framed the following issues:- * r ' whether the accid.ent took place d.ue to the rash ancl rrcglig_ent riding of the rid.er oflhe motor cgcle bearing Uo..fi O5-taB-8454 causing injuries to the petitioier? 2. Wrcther the petitioner is entitled. for compensation. If so, to what amount andfrom wham?

4. To what relief ?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pws I to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to 46. on behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduccd. t t \ 3 E'TD,J MACMA No.262_202I

8. Based on the evidence on record, the TribuneJ has granted a compensation of Rs.3,47,439/-.Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri p Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri p Bhanu Pr;ekash, learned counsel lor respondent No.2.

10. Learncd counsel for the appellant's argued tha.t the petitioner is an agriculturist and used to earn Rs.15,000 /- per month, but the tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.S,0oo/- which is very low. He further argued that though they have filed a disabiliry certificate disclosing 3oo/o of disability, the petitioner being an agriculturist. he has suffered looo,/o functional diserbility as he is not able to carry out agricultural operations after tl-re acciclent. [{e further argued that PW4, the doctor has also deposed to that effect that the petitioner cannot perflorrn his earlier dutie:s. Thus, looo/o functional disability has to be tal<en while awarding compensation towards future loss of earnings. He further arg;ued that the tribunal has awarded less amounts under various heads and has prayed to enhance the same and further prayed to consider future medical expenses and future prospects. 4 ETD,J MACMA No.262 202L I 1. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hancl has argued that the tribunal has considered all the factors and has awarded just compensation. He further contended that the disabitity certificate is not issued by the District Medical Board and that the said certificate is not reliable. He further argued that the petitioners have not liled any proof of income. Thus, the amount assessed by the tribunal is well reasoned. Therefore, prayed to uphold the orders passed by the tribunal.

12. Basecl on the above rival submission, this court frames the following points for consideration: -

1. wlrcther clainru.nt is entitled to enhancement of compensation? 2- whether the order and Decree passed. bg the Tibunat need. any interference?

3. To u.that relief

13. Point No.1:- a) The contention of the claimant is that, he is awarded very low compensation and thus prays for enhancement. b) [t is asserted by the petitioner that he sustained injuries in the accident and in support of his contention, Exs.A3 to ,{6 are filed. Ex.A3 is the Medico-Legal case record issued by Health care Hospitals. It reveals that the petitioner sustained injuries in an accident on 19. 1,o.2o15 and that he sustained one grievous injury l T t I \ \ 5 ETD,J MACMA No.262__202L i.e., an anterior lateral compartment leg avulsi,ln with crush injury. Ex.A4 is the discharge summary issued by Health care Flospitals w'hich reveals that the petitioncr was admittecl on L9.Lo.2o15 and was treated with clcbridement of EI-IL, TA, EDL and after the surgery, she was discharged on 25.i0.2o15 with an advise of medication and follow up. Ex.AS is the fine,l bill issued by the I-lealth Care Hospitals for Rs.40 ,OOOI_. c) The doctor who treated the petitioner is exanrined as pw4, he is a Plastic Surgeon at Health care Hospitals. His evidence reveals that he has treated the petitioner for Antero-Lateral compartment Leg avulsion n,ith crush injury, and that she was operated on 2o.ro.2o15 and discharged on 2s.to.2o15 and that Exs.A3 and ,A4 were issued by their hospitals. d) PW3 is the Billing Manager in Health care t-lospital, his evidence further reveals that Ex.A5/linal bill is iss,ued by their hospital a.d that they received Rs.4o,00o/- from r.he petitioner towards their bill. In the cross examination of p\vs 2 and 3, nothing . material was elicitecl t. disloclge thcir evidence. considering the evidence of pw2 and 3 coupled with IDxs.A3 to A5, it is held that the petitioncr has undergone treatmcnr at Health Care l-lospital lor her injuries lor a period liom i!).10.2015 to 25.Lo.2o15 and that she incurrecl an expenditure of Rs;.40,0 oo/_. .\ EI'D,J MACMA No.262 2021 6 e) The Tribunal has considered the medical expenditure i'e', Rs.40,0O0/- bill and also the other bills liled by the petitioner and has awarded a compensation of Rs.77,4 39 I - and the same is found to .be reasonable. It has further awarded incidental expenses towards transportation, extra-nourishment and clothes and articles. Ex.A6 is the Disabiliry certificate issued by Dr.cH. Sula 0 Pani, showing that the petitioner has suffered 3Oo/o disability, which is partial permanent in nature. The injury is mentioned as crush injury of right leg. Thus, the tribunal has awarded amount towards 307o permanent disability to an extent of Rs.2,7O,000/-. g) The petitioner has asserted that he is an agriculturist, but has not filed any proof. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that in the cross examination of PW 1, it is elicited that he was earning Rs.15,000 l- per month by selling vegetables and that he has not filed any proof. Though he stated in chief examination that he is an agriculturist, in his cross examination it is brought out that he is a vegetable vendor. [n Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundolram Alliance Insurance Compang Lirnitedl, the Apex court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourcr, Rs.4,5OO/- per month can be saf'ely ' (:orr) l2 scc 2i6 ) ) 7 ETD,J MACMA No.262 2021 taken as the income. Br-rt in the present case, the deceased was a vegetable vendor as per the contention of thc clzrirn petitioners. Bascd on the evidence on record, on a reasonable h-v.pclthesis, the tribunal has assessed the income to be Rs.s,oO()/- per month which appea.rs to be well justified. h) A perusal of the award passed by the tribunal reveals that, it failed to consider the aspects of pain and sufferir-rg and loss of earnings, but for that, the tribunal has awarded amounts under all the other heads. In view of the injuries sustained b..v the petitioner, it is opined that an amountof Rs.50,o0o/- is to be z*,.,arded under the head pain and suffering. i) Towards loss of earnings, since the petitioner was in patient for one week, and the injury sustained by him is a crush injury, it is the common knowledge that the petitioner mu:;t have taken three months to recover from the said injuric:s. Therefore, Rs.i5,0oo/' i.e., (5,0oo x3) is awarded towards loss o[ earnings. Thus, the cornpensation awarded by the tribunal is increased by an extent of Rs.65,0OO /-. j) Thus, the compensation to which the petitioncr is entitled is assessed as Rs.4, 12,4sg /- while the Tribunal hets au,arded Rs.3,47,4391 a Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled I 8 ETD,J MACMA No.262 2021 for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14, POINT NO.2: . It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This ccrurt has enhanced the compensation to Rs.4, 12,43g/- from that of Rs.3,47,4391- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the order and Decree dated lg.r2.2olg in M.v.o.P.No.7rl of 2oL6 passed by the chairman, the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,47,439/- to 4,12,439/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest (titT.Soh per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. [[or,r,ever, the interest for the perio<t of delay is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued intc:rest 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, t t (_ ETD,J Mr\CMA No.26)..-2021 the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// i t S TION OFFICER I To,

1. The Chairman lVlotor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, HYderabad.

2. One CC to SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. P. BHANU PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies BA/PSL i sPj E# HIGH COURT DATED:1 810712025 }]T (! t o ?. n 1 t, ,f il e[ l/ .J -l- t-* -\-;.;:--, /, JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.262 ot 2021 M.A.C.M.A. !S PARTLY ALLOWED q lel € IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between:

1. Mattagaja A.vialaiah, S/o Mattaqaja-Peda.Biksham Aged about 36 years, occ. Presenilv Nir (previousrv doiiq' egricurtuieJ ru7o "nrJ"hffiU;r|!' Mrr"g", ./{ileggr Oqd?Tr Etoor rrlanoarJwjisontiottiiiipreseniiv iJdibiii at H No 16-1-51614/4, Malakpet, Hyderabad - ...APPELLANT(S)/PETtTtONE R

1. chillara Mallaiah, s/o Ramulu Aged. Major, occ. owner of Motor cvcle lgqting No. TS 05 EB 8454 R/o-Dachi;am'vrilas",'nrrJtniliiill""o?r r.iatsonda District. AND 2- National lnsurance cgqp?ny r=td,.( Rep. by itq Divisionar Manager, T.p. claims Hub, Jubilee g^ulrgi.1ri_, g!"Ig,: no{ri... Auiqi,-trvde_rabad-500001 (cert No. 3901 0231146203641413, Vatid trom iz..ot.ioitsiorl:u ^i6i. 3. p. Aylaiah, 9/o Q Pothaiah Agg{ ab.o_ut Q! years, occ. Agricutture (Rider of M.otor cycre bearins I'9. IS 05-EB y1;!) R/d[.G.1-iz',XJ6di vir]g'l, Shaligouraram Mandal, Nalgonda Distri6t ' ... RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the judgment and decree in M.V.o.P. No. 711 of 2016 dated 19t12t2019,6n the fite of court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Xl 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 materiai papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri. pALLATI CHANDRAMOULI Adv_ocate for Appellants and of Sri. P. BHANU PRAKASH Advocate for Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for Respondent No.1. This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is parfly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 19.12-.2O1b i; M.V.O.P.No.711 of 2016, enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,47,43g/- to 4,12,439t-; 2. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.So/o pet annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited; 3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a gopy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. 4. That on such deposit, the appellant is entifled to withdiaw the amount without 5. That save as aforesaid the decree of the Tribunal shall stands mnfirmed in all 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. furnishing any security, other respects; and SD/- MOHO.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// "{="r,o* oFFrcER To,

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal cum Xl Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies BA HIGH GOURT DATED i 1810712025 DECREE MACMA.No.262 of 2021 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED a4l,oW