The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRl. AMRUTHA SANJEEVA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI SATYANAND RAO The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.325 OF 2023 I I I I JUDGMENT: This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the order, dated 22.11.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.296 of 2Ol9 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed the claim petition for Rs.2,00,000/- as he met with an accident on lz.og.2oLa while he was going on TVS XL No.TS-16-EH-3251 from Arsapally to Nizamabad :rnd ar 6:30 P.M. when the motorcycle crossed Arsapally railway gate, one lorry bearing No.TS- 16-uB-52o0 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the TVS XL moped from back side resulting in accidcnt and injuries to the appellant. In the accident, the appellant sustained fracture of right hand, right leg and right scapula and other injuries all over the body. 4- The appellant/claimant got examined P.ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A16. Respondent No.2 got examined R.w.1 and got marked Ex.B 1-copy of policy. 2

5. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry and therefore, the respondents are held liable to pay compensation. Further, upon considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, compensation of Rs.1,20,OOO/- with interest was awarded. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

6. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the income of the appellant at Rs.3O,OOO/- per month as he was milk vendor and shepherd. Further, the bills of Rukmini Hospital have not been considered and therefore, sought enhancement.

7. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the bills marked under Exs.A9 to A13, more particularly, Ex.A11-hospital bill showing payment of Rs.74,32O1-. Further, loss of earnings is not avi'arded and meager amount is awarded towards transportation.

8. In response, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the Tribunal has considered the evidence on record and that there is no error in passing of the award and therefore, prayed to confirm the same. g. A perusal of the record shows that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- towards simple injuries and the same need not be interfered with. Further, an amount of \ \ 3 Rs.3O,00O/- is awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- tou'ards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. There is payment of compensation twice under the heads of grievous injury and pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the payments under various heads.

10. As contended by the appellant, the Tribunal did not consider payment of loss of earnings as a milk vendor and shepherd. Since there is no proof about income of the appellant as a milk vendor and shepherd, the notional income is taken at Rs.1O,OO0/- per month and an amount of Rs.5O,O00/- is an'arcled for 5 months of time period which may be taken for healing of wound and resuming normal work.

11. Further, a comparison of the oral evidence of P.W.2-Dr.B.Gavaskar and Exs.Pg to P13 shows that the Tribunal has arrived at an erroneous finding that the nature of injuries under Ex.A3 and the treatment bills pertaining to Exs.AS to A13 are not similar and therefore, the said bitls \ \ are not taken into consideration. This finding of the Tribunal is clearly erroneous in view of the oral evidence adduced by P.W.2-doctor wherein he clearly deposed that the treatment given and the bills exhibited under Exs.AS to A13 are corresponding with the injuries in Ex.A3-medical certificate. The only aspect i.e. separating Ex.A3 certificate and the treatment is that there was non-healing of the foot injury which led to ulcer and therefore, the appellant had to take treatment after a gap of 30 4 t.) days. In view of the erroneous findings, there is a need to award the bills marked under Exs.All and Al2 for Rs.74,32O1- and Rs.33,864/- respectively. 12- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanccd from Rs. 1,20,0 OO I - to Rs.2,78, l84l- with interest @ 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a pcriod of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. However, the appellant is directed to Ra1 the deficit Court- fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Misccllaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. One CC to SRl. AMRUTHA SANJEEVA Advocate TOPUCI 3. One CC to SRl. Mr. SATYANAND RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GEw. HIGH COURT DATED:1 610712025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.326 of 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l i ! I I I I ! l I I I I I I I I I I I r , b [ 3442 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Between: Dhandu Mallaih @ Nadipi Mallaiah, S/o. Beerappa @ Pedda Beerappa, Aged 58 years, Occ. Milk-Vending And Shepherd, R/o. Arsapally, Nizamabad (lvl) and Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND

1. Abdul Azhar, S/o. Abdul Lateef, Aged Major, Owner of Lorry Bearing No TS-16- U8-5200, R/o. H.No.9-17-378, Hashmi Colony, Nizamabad-s03 001.

2. The New lndia Assurance Co Ltd, Rep. By its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, APSFC Building, lFloor, Subhashnagar, Opp.Z.P. Office, Nizamabad- 503 002. (Respondent No.1 not necessary party) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 17.3 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 22.11.2022 passed in O.P No. 296 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad. 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 SRt. AMRUTHA SANJEEVA, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRI SATYANAND RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: -:-'-T ,/ To GE 9,

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby allowed.

2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,20,0001- to Rs.2,78,1841- with interest @ 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation amount from the date of petition till the date of realization

3. That the enhanced compensation amount be and is hereby shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a period qf two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

4. That on such deposit, the appellant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security.

5. That the Appellant be and hereby is directed to pay the deficit Courtfee on the enhanced compensation.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal llTrue Copyll MOHD. ISMAIL REGISTRAR OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal I Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT RYJ DATED:1610T l2O25 DECREE MACMA.No.326 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \ 1^