The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decree passed by the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal,) in M.v.o.P.No.1873 of 2014, dated 29.o1.2o2o, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,0oo/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 22.06.2014.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.v.o.P.No.18'23 of 2ol4 under section 166 of the M.v.Act, 19gg seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Tata Ace Vehicle. It is contended that on 22.06.2014, the petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.Ap-2g-BM-3200 and when they reached n.ear Prashanth Nagar Bus stop, the driver of Tata Ace vehicle bearing No.Ap-2S -TB-TTZ8 carne in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture 2 UACMA !Io.349 of 2O2O and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Prime Hospital, Kukatpally. The Police registered a case in Crime No.428 of 20 14 against the respondent No. 1/driver of offending vehicle

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained fracture of left little finger metacarpal, crush injury to left hand palm, polytrauma with facial injury to left upper limb, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body and petitioner was completely bed ridden and lost his job and also incurred huge expenditure and claimed an arnount of Rs.8,00,0OOl- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 - Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd., filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Tata Ace Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. n 3 UACMA I[o.349 of 2O2O

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the [earned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the aeident took place due to ro.sh and negligent dnuing of Tata Ace beaing No.AP-28-TB-7778, causing tnjuries to the petitioner? ii) Whettrcr the petitioner is entitled for ampensation? If so, to what extent and from wlnm? iii)To what relieJ?

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,O4,OOO/- along with interest @ 9% per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that. the petitioner was working as Pastor in a Church and used to earn Rs.1O,0OO/- per month and due to accident and injuries sustained by hi.m, the petitioner lost his job and was unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that claimants has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has 4 MACMA lto.349 of 2O2O awarded an amount of Rs.2,04,ooo/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

8. . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) Fracture of lefi little finger metacarpal. ii) Crush injury to left hand palm. iii) Poly trauma wtthfacial. iu) Injury to lefi upper lim. u) Head injury.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner also got examined the Doctor who treated him as pW2 and it is evident from the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was treated for the injury of his left little finger and other injures , PW2 also arrived the disability of the petitioner approximately 10% and contended that due to said disability there shall be restricted movements on the left hand, weak grips in the hands and the petitioner will face difficulty in driving the vehicles and further contended that petitioner was admitted into the Prime Hospital on 22.06.2014 and discharged on 25.06.2014. Ex.A4 is discharge summary issued by the hospital. Ex.A3 is Medico legal record which shows that the petitioner received one grievous injury and one ,? 5 UACMA lt0.349 of2O2O simple injury of abrasion on face. Ex.A6 revels that the hospital charged bill of Rs.73,974/- for Hospitalization.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.6O,O00/- towards loss of earning, but the learned Tribunal awarded €rn arnount of Rs.20,000/- and also not awarded just compensation under other heads i.e., pain and sufferance, extra nourishment, transport charges, damage to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony, and awarded Rs.2rO4rOOO/- in total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal

11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

12. Heard Sri K.Harimohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kondacli Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material on record .- \q*.fryEr$a .l \.\\ ,_.\ 6 MACMA Ito.949 of 2O2O

13. The respondents have not hled cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondent No.1 and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) W?rctlrcr the petitioner is entitledfor the enhanced compensation, if so, to uhat ertent? Point No.1 L4. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on

22.06.2014. The petitioner claimed that he was working as Paster in the Church and drawing salary of Rs.10,000/- per month, however no documentar5r proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was working as Pastor in the Church and drawing a SaIary of Rs.10,000/-. The learned Tribunal has presumed that petitioner might have taken rest for two months due to said accident and estimated Rs.20,0OO/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month towards'loss of earnings', The Honble Suprme Court in Latha Wadhwa us. Stat e of Biharr, where it is stated that in the absence of such documentary proof with regard to income of the petitioner and where there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering ThF ground realities by the Courts, hence the 1 2001(8) SCC 197 \ 7 ilAQ&troia2 e(2Q2Q compensation is granted by the Learned Tribunal in so far as assessing the income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which appear to be fair and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. As per Ex.A3 the petitioner received one simple and one grievous injury. Ex.AS is a disability certificate issued by PW2 stating that of 10% disability of Ieft hand, hou'ever there is no mention in the Ex.AS as to the disability whether it is of permanent in nature or partial, hence this Court cannot take into account the Ex.AS for assessing the compensation towards future prospects. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.1o,00o/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards simple injury and Rs.10,000/- towards the grievous injury, which this Court feel the said amount granted by the learned Tribunal needs no interference, however, with regard to pain and sufferance, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- which appears to be meager and this Court enhances the said amount of Rs.20,00o1- to Rs.35,000/-. The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of 'damages to clothing and articles', admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident and the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this Court feel it rappropriate to grant Rs.2,000/- towards compensation under the head of 'damage to clothing and articles'. As per Ex.A6, the petitioner spent Rs.73,974f - towards hospital bitl and Ex.AS, estimation B uAe![e lsjl4e_-s!2424 F letter towards future surgery for reducing the bulk on the left hand, and the Tribunal granted Rs.73,9741- towards Medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards surgery, which is not disputed by both the respondent No.2, hence no interference required.

15. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference Head Medical Expenses Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Rs.73,974/- Rs-73,974/- l,oss of earning for two months Transportation Charges Rs.2O,000/- Rs.1O,OO0/- Rs.2O,0OO/- Rs.10,0OO/- One Simple Injury Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,O00/- One Grievous Injury Rs.1O,000/- Rs.1O,00O/- Pain and Suffering Rs.2O,000/- 35,OOO/- Extra Nourishment Rs.l5,O00/- Rs.15,000/- Surgery Rs.50,O00/- Rs.5O,000/- Damages to cloths & articles Total Rs.2,OOO/- Rs.2,2O,9741- Rs.2,O3,974 l- Rounded to Rs 2,O4,OOOl- / 9 IIACMA No.349 of2O2O

16. The Triblrnal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of the petition, and this Court is granting gyo interest per €u1num on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,03,9741- to Rs.2r2or974l- (Rupees T.oyo Lakhs TVenty Thousand and Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Rupees onlyl with the interest of 9o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of reaJization. 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 a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without ftrrnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, sha1l stand closed. SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ .\ \ Secnou oFFlcER To, City Civil Court HYderabad.

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, 2. Ont CC to Sri K.Harimohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K.Ajay Kumar,'Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies u AS/NIVB t ,1 r ri'' i\'!t L# HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.349 ot 2020 'i HES <:. z 7, ./-;. :,, MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS \ \\ \ [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 349 OF 2020 Between: Ch.Ratna Raju, S/o. Ch.Luther Paul, Aged 55 Nil, R/o. H.No.Flat No.233, Phase ll, Janapriya years, Occ. Paster, Presently Nagar, Miyapur, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Kamble Jagadishwar Rao and Another, S/o. Ramakrishna Rao, C/o. Vasi Reddy Sridhar, Aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o H-No. 1-41, Near BJP Office, Ward No.5, Kukatpally, Hyderabad P1N.500072

2. Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager,4th Floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad. Pin 500001 ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.'1873 of 2014 daled.29l10l2120 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX 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 material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and of Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in party by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,03,974l- to Rs.2,20,97 4l- (Rupees Two Lakhs Twenty Thousand and Nine Hundred and Seventy Four Rupees only) with the interest of 9% on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. That the respondent are directed to deposit the said amount together with cots and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. ,/TRUE COPY// SD/. M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR S TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, 2. Two CD Copies City Civil Court Hyderabad. ASAIVB W HIGH COURT DATED:2510412025 DECREE MACMA.No.349 o12020 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS \ \ \\ /