The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR TSRri ;) Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI JAGATHPAL REDt Y KASI REDDY The Court delivered the following: Common Judgment l I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NOs.381 & 563 OF 2O21 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Dccree dated

11.12.2O2O in M.V.O.P.No .2746 of 20 16 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidcnt Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (tor short "the Tribunal").

2. For conveniencc and clariq', [he parties herein are referred to as thev u,ere arrayed before thc Tribunal

3. 'I'he case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

26.O9.2O16 at about 4:30 p.m., while the petitioner was going as a pillion rider on a two u,heelcr bearing Registration No.TS-07EY- 4561 and when they reached near Chest Hospital, S.R. Nagar, one RTC btrs bearing No.TS-O7Z-4004 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligcnt manner at a I'righ speed, dashed against the two r.r.heeler, due to which the petitioner ar-rd the rider of thc vehiclc lell dou,n and sustained injuries. Immcdiately, she was shiftcd to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda for trcatment. The petitioner has incurred huge expenditure, thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs.20,0O,OO0/-.

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 has filed counter denying the avermcnts of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the 2 EID,J MI MA Nos 381 &663 2021 accident, age, avocation and income of the petittr r r.r It is lurther contended that the rider of the motor bikc clit not havc valid driving license as on the datc of the accident artrl neghgence ol bike rider in thc occurrcnce ol.ti-rr. lhat therc was tcct(lcnt.'l'hus, they denied t heir liability.

5. The respondent No.3 remained ex_parte.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal follorving issues lor consideration :_ rits framo..l the " 1 , Whether tlrc pLeacletl ttct:rclenl hctcT oct:ur rL , rrzTunes sustained bq ttrc petiionar SLt(.u t Naqamani, due to rctslt ancl neqlqent tjnun,, beoring registrafion No.IS 07,-tOOi, bg its drit,,, t'fltllLtKl i t Qtl t, K i A,'t{' Rur;

3. Whether the pettttorrcr s erttttled to rlnq comp(,t,! at whot quatltunl ctncl rhef is the lru ! r Respondents2 1!tott? If so. | .!t ,rf lh( To uthat retief ?"

7. To prove their case, thc pctitioncrs got exanr r ccl I)Ws I to 4 and trxs.Al to A13 werc marked. On bchalf of th(. f ,spor)dcnts no oral evidence was adduced. 8 Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunir I tas :.ru,ardecl a compensation of Rs.7,99,Og0/_. Aggrieved by the decree, MACMA.No.38 I of 2O2t is filed by thc seeking enhancement of compensation, s rid order and cl im petitioner while MAr ' r4A. \o.6o3 of 2021 is filed by TSRTC. 'l ETD,.] MACMA Nos.381 &663 2021 3

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, Sri R. Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC.

10. Learncd counsel for the RTC has submitted that the owner and insurer of lhe two wheeler are necessary parties to the petition and that the petition is bad for their non joinder. He further argued that but for the petitioner, there was no other independent witness examined in Lhis case and that the driving licensc of the bike rider is not produced and lhat contributory negligence has to be attributed to the rider of the bike. He further argued that the petitioner has not hled any income proof, but the tribunal has granted huge amounts under vari.ous heads. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compcnsation. 1 1. The learned counsel for the claimants has argued that the crime record shows that the accident occurred due to the negligence of RTC driver and there is no evidence iead by the respondents to prove the contributory negligence of the bike rider. He further argued that the petitioner suffered amputation above the knee and that the petitioner being a '27' year old lady has suffered a lot. She is a tailor by profession and that she has lost her future prospects tota1ly. He further submitted that 80% is assessed by the District Medical Board, but she disability sullered 1OO%o functional disability, as she cannot do any other \ \ ., 4 ETD,J v \CMA Nos.381 &663 2021 work in the future. He further submitted that th t y have atso filed the quotation of prosthesis i.e., artificial limb ur rer trx.A11. but the tribunal has failed to consider Lhe same. He r .rthcr submittcd that due to amputation at a young age, the p: rtroner lost her future amenities and loss of marital lile as her IL rsband descrtcd her. He further submitted that the tribunal l: z s assessed the earnings of the petitioner to be very low and pri,r., rd to assess the income as Rs.10,000/- per month. He therefore, pr ryed to enhitnce the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this rl following points for determination: rurt frames the

3. Whether there ruas ang contibutory negligenc: the ider of the motor bike beaang fio_fi..O-iav ; occlttrence of the accident? olL port of 561 in the Whether the compensation granted bLt the .1 jrtst and reasonable? ibunql is Whether the order and d.ecree oJ the Tibunql ntt ang interkrence? ' 7 To uthat relieJ?

4. 13. Point No. l: a) The contention of the RTC counsel is tl at there was contributory negligence on part of the bike rider t, I d that he has not hied any driving license. b) A perusal of Ex.A1/FIR and the charge she: under trx.A2 reveais that the charge sheet is raid against the dr.i r :r of RTC bus. The recitals of the charge sheet reveal that the ac(r lenr occurred ETD,J MACMA Nos.38i &663_2021 5 due to the rash and ncgligent driving of the RTC bus driver and when the petitioncr was travelling as a pillion rider on the motor bike bearing No.TS-07EY-4561, the RTC Bus bearing No.TS-072- 4O04 bcing driven by its driver came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two '*'hecler on whrch the petitioner was travclling, thus culminating in the accident. c) The evidence of PWl cannot be brushed aside as she is the injured witness. Her evidence clearly reveals the manner in which the accident occurred. Therefore, based on the evidence of PWI coupled with Exs.A 1 and A2, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and ncgligencc of the RTC driver and that there was no contributory negligence of the rider of the motor bike. Point No. I is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) The case of the petitioner is that she sustained grievous injuries and suffered amputation of leg above the knee as a result of the said injuries. b) A perusal of Ex.A3/MLC rccord reveals that she sustained two grievous injuries i.e., one injury on left knce avulsion and fracture of left knee, second injury is with regard to crush injury on left thigh. A perusal of Ex.A4/Discharge Summary of Yashoda Hospital ,reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 26.09.2016, surgery was performed on 27 .O9.2O 16 and was discharged on 6 ETD,] I I IMA Nos.381 &663 2021

01. I 0.20 16. It further reveals the details ,r . underwent by tl.re petitioner during stay a t the treatmen t the hospital, amputation u'as done on 27.09.2016 above kne . . shc was rer:ommcnded medication and revier,. on the 1,-- lt lcg, 1t the trmc of discharge. Ex.AS reveals that she was again arl eitrr:d in NIMS Hospital on 19.71.2016 and got discharged on

6.11.20i6 and surgcry was performed on 22.11.2016. Ex.A5 fur therc lvas a raw area over the stump that is amputa[ion and thus, she was treated for the sa r I thc raw arezr, by re-surfacing it with graft h3n r; thigh. She also lirrther followed up her treaLnrr Flospital during October 2016 and the inpatient ir I Lo an extenl of Rs.2,O5,O00/-. The disability rer r-eveals that at the :iitc of :, bv scrappit'rg 1ed from righ t 'rt rn Yashocla filccl by hcr is c r rLificate under Ex.A 10 rcveals that she sustained g5% disabilitr lecause ol pos( traumatic amputation of left lower limb caused dr:t And the petiti()ner has also hled trx.A1l, vr.hich is o the accidcnt. r qttotatiorr lrrr above knee - p ro s thesi s. c) It is elicited from pW2/Dr. Dasarath Ram Rr ldy v,,ho is an Orthopedic Surgeon at yashoda Hospital, that the petitioner suffered amputation on above knee of her left leg il;.r I that she u,as admitted on 26.09.2016 and was discharged on 0. 1O.2016, their hospital has issued Exs.A3, A4, A6, A7 and that Ex. 17 is the Final ,l t I I j I I i I I I I i i I I I ! ETD,J f/ACIvlA Nos.381 &663 2021 7 Bill. He further deposed that she needs an artihcial limb to perform her daily activities. d) PW3/T. Venkateshwar Rao, 1S the Billing Manager of Yashoda Hospital, his evidence reveals that their final bill is Rs.2,08,403l - out of which they have given a discount of Rs.3,402/-. Nothing material r,i,as elicited during their cross examination to discredit their evidence. Therefore, the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 coupled with Exs.A3, A4, A6 and A7 reveals that the petitioncr suffered crush injury on the left leg and Lhus underwent amputation above knee. It is further elicited thal she requires an artificial limb for which a quotation is submitted under trx.Al1, otherwise she cannot perform her daily duties. Considering the gravity of injuries and the length of treatment underwent by the petitioner, it is opined that Rs.1,00,000/- if au'arded under pain and suffering it would be just and reasonable. e) With regard to the medical cxpenses, it is elicited from PWs 2 and 3 that the petitioner has paid Rs.2,05,OO0/- towards medical expenses, apart from which she might have incurred expenses towards transportation, incidental expenses, extra-nourishment, attendant charges etc., Considering the evidence on record an amount of Rs.50,0O0/- is awarded torvards the said expenses. 8 ETD,J M;( \.,1A Nos.381 &663 2021 f) With regard to the loss of earnings, the crr rten tion of the petitioner is that she used to run Ladies Borr iquer by doing tailoring work and used to earn Rs.2S,OOO/ - per ronlh, but no prooi is filed in this regard. g) Thc pctitioner counsel has relied upon rr Jegarani & Another Vs. The Manager Bajaj Atlianz Genero.j.1 rvhereil, lhe Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason, rr r dcir;umt:ntatl. cvidence can l)c expected. Horvever, taking into co rsideration thc avocation of thc deceased and the year of the accicrt nt bcing 2013, thc morrthly income of the deceased could t.r reckonr:d at Rs.9,O0O/ - an<l has also added future prospects. h) [n the erbsence of any proof, the Apex C,; rrt has t:rken Rs.9,OOO/- pcr month for a labourer, in the saLr casc. In the present case, lto proof of income is filed. However, the age of thc petitioncr is stated to be '3O'years as per the disalr hty ccrtihcate. Considering her age and ability to work, it is opiner that, she has the capacity to carn atleast Rs.9,OOO/- per month. i) Since, she suffered amputation, loss of earnin 1s for one ycar is awarded. Thcrefore, Rs.9,000/- x 12 = Rs. 1,0g,0O )/_ js awarded under the head loss of earnings. I Civil Appcal Nos.43lO-43 tl of202l i t I i i i ) : i I I i ETD,] MACMA Nos.381 &663 2021 9 j) With regard to the loss of future earnings duc to functional disability, Ex.A10 discloses that she suffered 85% disability to left lower limb. Considering her avocation and keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2, 85% of disability as disclosed from Ex.A 10 is scaled down to 50% with regard to whole body and the loss of future earnings is assesse d as 25ok. After adding future prospects of 4O7o to thc monthly income, it would be Rs.i2,6OO/- (Rs.9,000/- + 3,600/-) and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.12,60O x12 = 1,51,2OO x 25%o x 17 which comes rp to 6,42,600 l-. k) Though the petitioner contended that she requires an artificial limb, she has not hled any bill, but shc has submitted a quotation. Therefore, the same is not considered. 1) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the foliow.ing compcnsation amounts: sI. No. 1. 4 Name of the heads Cornpensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Awarded by this Court r Rs. 1,00,000/, Loss of future earnings due to disability Compensation under t1le head of hospital, Medical Expenses, r transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses Total "1,08,q0O1 6,42,600 / - 2,55,0OO/- Rs.11,05,600 / t zot t 1to scc :+: i l i 10 ETD,] M \ MA Nos.381&663 2021 m) Therefore, the compensation to which tl,r: petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs. 11,05,600/- while rlr : Tribunal has granted Rs.7,99,080/-. Therefore, it is held that thr petitioners are entitlcd for enhancement of compensation. Point Nr,.2 is answered accordingly.

15. POINT NO.3:- It is hetd that the order and decree of the Trilt rnal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensat on. This Court has enhinced the compensation to Rs. 1 1,O5,60C, - from that of Rs.7,99,O80/- i.e., awarded by rhe Tribunal. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

16. POINT NO.4:- In the result, the MACMA.No.663 of 2027 frl<.< by lhe TSRTC is dismissed, u,hile MACMA.No.381 ol 2O2l filed Lrr .he claimant is partiy al1ow,ed modifying the Order and Decree datec ll.)2.2O2O rn M.V.O.P.No.2746 of 2016 passed by the Chairmarr. rlotor Accidcnt Claims Tribunal-cum-The Court of the Chief JtLr Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compe r ge, City Civil sation from Rs.7,99,O8O/- to Rs.11,05,600/- which shall carry.i terest @ 7 .Sc'/o per annum from the date of claim petition trll realizt tion. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The r.< spondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with zLr crued interest within a period of two months from the date of recti )t of a copy of IL this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entrtled to wi[hdraw ETD,J MACMA Nos.381&663 2021 the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscelianeous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SDl. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR t'<? SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_ the Court of the Chief - Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad(With records, if any) 2. One CC to SRI JAGATHPAL REDDY KAS| REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRI R ANURAG (SC FOR ISRTC), Advocate tOpU'Cl 4. Two CD Copies ADI'/PSL { E I i i I i ; I I I I I I l I t 1 HIGH COURT DATED:2510712025 COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE HES I g jiil ?1ll \ t' ..ll .*;; r.i,',t..:, '::lF.',":-l\- l'- -: ':::'2 - l.: / ..,. MACMA.Nos.381 AND 663 OF 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.:3 81 OF 2021 AND DISMISSING THE MAMCA.No.663 OF 21,t21 I V { I ! !: I I I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MACMA. Nos.381 AND 663 OF 2021 MACMA. NO: 381 OF 2021 Between: Smt. Siyon Kumari, K.Nagamani, Wo. Occupation- Business, residents of H.No Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad K.Vi,iay Shyam, aged- 29 Years, 6-28811 , Plot No.1 , Venkateshwara ... Petitioner/Petitioner AND

1. T.S.R.T.C, Rep by its Managing Director, Office situated at Bus Bhavan, RTC lX Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. T.S.R.T.C, Rep by its Depot Manager, Office situated at Hayathnagar Depot-ll, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State.

3. A.Lalaiah, S/o A.Laxmaiah, Aged major, Occ- Driver of the RTC Bus, R/o H.No. 1-189, Telugupally, Devarakonda, Nalgonda District ...Respondents/Respondents MACMA.NO.663 0F 2021 Between:

1. T.S.R.T.C Rep by its Managing Director, Office Situated at Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

2. T.S.R.T.C., Represented by its Depot Manager, Office Situated at Hayathnagar Depot-ll, Hayathnagar, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana State. ...Appellants/Respondents AND 1 Smt. Siyon Kumari @ K. Nagamani, Wo. K. Vijay Shyam, Aged 29 years, Occupation. Business, R/o. H. No. 6-28811 , Plot No.1, Venkateshwara Nagar, Chintal, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Petitioners .':.<:';ss'

2. A. Lalaiah, S/o. A. Laxmaiah, Aged. Major, Occupation Bus, R/o. H. No 1-189, Telugupally, Devarakonda, Nalgyr 248. (Respondents No.2 herein is not a necessary party ir relief is claimed against him.) )river of the RTC nda Diskict- 508 this Appeal as no ...Resgr , n d e nts/Respon d ent Appeal filed Under Section i 73 of Motor Vehicles; Order and decree in M.V.O.p.No.2746 of 2016 dated.11.1Z 2 Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_r;r Chief Judge, City Civit Courts, Hyderabad. Act,19BB against the 120 on the file of the m- the Court of the This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing t the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the materii and upon hearing the arguments of SRI JAGATHPAL RE Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA.No.3B1 of 2021 and MACIT/A.No.663 of 2021 and of SRt R ANURAG (SC F( Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in MACMA.No.381 of ZO21 MACMA.No.663 of 2021 e grounds of appeal, I papers rn the Case DDY KASI REDDY Respondent No.'1 in R TSRTC), for the and Petitioners in This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the MACMA.No 663 of 2021 be and hereby is disnri ;sed; 2 That the MACMA.No381 of 2021 be and hereby is pelry ailowed modifying the order and Decree dated 11.12.2020 in M.V.o.p.Nc. 1746 of 2016 passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-T re court of the chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the, compensation from Rs.7,99,0801 to Rs. 't 1,05,600t which shall carry interes @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That However, the interest for the period of delay is forfe i _.d; 4- That the respondents are directed to deposit the comr,( nsation 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 : ready deposited; 5. That on such deposit, the appeilant is entifled to with<rr rw the said amount without furnishing any security; l I I =Y7

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR e SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad 2, Two CD Copies ADKA'SL r I I l l l l I l I i I I HIGH COURT DATED:25107 12025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.381 AND 663 OF 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.i 81 OF 2021 AND DISMISSING THE MAMCA.No.663 OF 1r-121 \ 'rr