The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SMT.JUSTI CE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3446 OF 2OO9 JUDGMENT: 1. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MI Additional District Judge) (FTC), NDamabad at Bodhan (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.214 of 2OO4, dated 24.O7.2009, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For tl-re sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Acr, 1988 read with Rule 455 of A.p.M.V. Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,O0O l- for the injuries sustained by him in a rirotor vehicle accident that took place on 01.11.2003. It is stated by the petitioner that on 01 . 1 I .2003, when the petitioner, along with others, was travelling towards Nizamabad in an Airto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP-25-U-2O83, at about 9.O0 a.m., when the said Auto-rickshaw reached near Kailash Timber Depot, Arsapalli, the driver of the said Auto drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high z MGP,] MACMA.No.3446 of 2009 i I speed and gave dash to a Cyclist from behind and later' the said Autoturnedturtle.Asaresult,thepetitionerandother inmates of the Auto-rickshaw sustained multiple grievous injuries The petitioner sustained fracture of left forearm radius lower end, fracture of left clavicle, fracture of 2"d ' 3'd metacarpals left, abrasion over left forearm' abrasion over the left shoulder, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body and sustained permanent disability' Immediately after the accident the pelitioner was shifted to Governmept Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad and later admitted in private nursing home and underwent several operations and incurred more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenditure' It is stated by the petitioner that due to the fracture injuries sustained by him, the petitioner is unable to walk and attend to his regular work and getting pain' giddiness and became dependant on'others for performing his personal works' Hence filed petition claiming compensation of Rs'2'0O'00O/- against the respondents. It is further stated by the petitioner that prior to accident' 4. he was hale and healthy and used to do agriculture and Milk business and earn a sum of Rs'10'000 l- per month and contribute,the same for maintenance of his famiiy' Due to the ---------- 3 M6P,J MACh4A.No.3446 of 2009 alleged accident, the petitioner was put to mental agony, hardship and monetary loss and his life became gloomy which cannot be expressed in terms of words.. Since the alleged accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-25-U-2083, therefore, respondent No. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2/lnsurance Company both are jointly and severally liabie to pay compensation.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No. l/owner of. Auto bearing No.A P-25-U-2083, remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying thc averments made in the claim petition including, age, avocation, income, manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, amount spent towards treatment and contended that the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-25-U-2O83 do not have valid driving license and APPSV badge to drive such vehicle and the said auto was not road worthy to ply at the material time of alleged accident and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it. 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.3446 0f 2009 7 . Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:_ i. Whether the accident has taken plqee due to rosh and negligent diuing of Auto Troltey beaing No.Ap_ 25-U-2O83 bg its diuer? ii. Wrcther the petitioner i.s entitled for compensation? If so, to uhat amount and against uthom? To what relieJ? iii.

8. During the course of trial, the petitioner/injured examined himself as PWl, got examined pW2 and got marked Exs.Al to A5 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.B l-Copy of insurance policy was marked.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly_ailowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.4O,OOO/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposii payable by both the respondents I & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the said compensation awarded, the petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

10. Heard arguments submitted by Sri y.S.yellanand Gupta, * learned counsel for the appellant/ injured and Sri N.S.Bhaskara I -------- 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.3446 of 2009 Rao, learnt:d Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

11. The one and only contention of thi: learned counsel for Appellant/ injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal is that though the learned Tribunal appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner, but it railed to award adequate compensation and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. On tbe other hand, learned counsel for the resprindent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after consiclering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation lor which interference of this Court is unwarrantcd.

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the appellant/ injured is entitled for e nhancement of compensation? POINT:- 14. Si-nce there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The 6 MGP,] MACMA-No.3445 of 2009 only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

15. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 10,0O0 I - each for 3 grievous injuries, Rs.2,50O/- each for 2 simple injuries, Rs.2,O00/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards transport charges, Rs. 1,00O/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 1,000/- towards attendant charges which in total comes to a total compensation of Rs.40,OO0/-.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that though the Tribunal appreciated t-he evidence of PW2-Doctor, but it awarded very meager amount towards the said grievous injuries.

17. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW2- Doctor who deposed that the petitioner was examined by Dr.P.V.Sudhakar and he stated that the petitioner sustained the following injuries viz., (il Swelling and deformitlr over left forearm with fracture of left radius, (ii) Fracture of left clavicle, (iii) Fracture of 2na and 3rd metacarpal left, (iv) Abrasion over left forearm and (v) Abrasion over left shoulder. He deposed that 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.3446 of 2009 the injuries mentioned under (i) to (iii) are grievous in nature and the injuries (iv) and (v) are simple in nature. Further, Ex.A3-Wound certificate discloses that the petitioner sustained above injuries.

18. Therefore, from the evidence of PW2 and Ex.A3-Wound certificate, it can be held that the petitioner sustained 3 grievous injuries and 2 simple injuries. This Court, considering the nature of injuries referred above, is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award a sum of Rs.25,00O/- each towards three grievous fracture injuries and an amount of Rs.5,0O0/- each for two simple injuries. Also, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the pain and suffering undergone by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the Head of pain and suffering to the petitioner. Further, considering the surgeries underwent by the petitioner and period of medication prescribed to him, this Court considers that the amount awarded under the head of medical expenses would not be suflicient to meet his needs. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the hnding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. I t, Further, this Court, also enhances the amounts awarded under 8 MGP,] MACMA.No.3446 of 2009 the heads of transport, extra-nourishment and attendant charges from Rs. 1,00O/- to Rs.5,000/- and calculate rhe compensation as under: - S.No. Name of the Head 3 Grievous injuries 2 simple injuries Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.30,000/- {Rs.10,000/- each) Rs.5,OOO/- charges period of Medical Expenses Attendant during treatment Transport charges Extra nourishment Pain and suffering TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,O0O/- Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Rs.40,000/- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. 8. Amount awarded thls Court Rs.75,000/- (Rs.25,000/ - each Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.5,0O0/ - each) Rs.1O,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,OO0/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5O,000/- Rs. 1,60,000/-

19. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.40,00O/- to Rs. 1,60,000/-. Except the said finding, the hndings arrived by the Tri6unal with regard to rate of interest and liability shall remain undisturbed. There shali be no order as to costs

20. Miscellaneous closed. petitions pending, if any, shall stand //TRUE COPYII "^ lsSBYffffRES,SFRiI \ To SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_ cum- Vll Additional District Judge, Nizamaba d at Bod han. (with Record One CC to SRI YSYEL LA NAND GUPTA , Advocate [OpUC One CC to SRt Two CD Co pres N-S B HASKARA RAO, Ad vocate [OpUC] s if any) 2 3 4 HIGH COURT DATED: 0610312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3446 of 2009 S fAT€ 1 11 N\N I oESltN.': q f o i^ M 7^ o D { PARTLY ALL.OWED b e IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THURSDAY HE SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE . PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL N O: 3446 OF 2009 Between: Tadipamula Krishna Goud, S/o Raja Goud, aged 30 years, Occu: Agriculture and Milk Vendor R/o Kurnapatti Village, yedpally Mandai, Nizimabad District. ...APPELLANT. AND

1. -S|gik.Ahmed, 2083 R/o Arsapally, Nizamabad. S/o Mehtab, age major, Occu: Owner of Auto No Ap 25-U-

2. Nqtional lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lakshmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizamabad. Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O.P.NO.214 of 2004 dated.24.O7.2O09 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Vll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad at Bodhan. ...RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and t)ecree of the court below and the material papers in the MVop and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. Y S YELLA NAND GUPTA, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO, Counsel 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 parfly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.40,000/- to Rs. 1,60,000/-;

2. That the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of interest and liability shall remain undisturbed except the above said finding; s laj save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shail stands confirmed 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal in all other aspects; and //TRUE COPY// Sd/- P PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (, To sEcrtffioFFlcER l The chairman, Motor_Accident claims Tribunar-cum- vil Additionar District ^ .Judge, Nizamabad at Bodhan. 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED: 0610:312025 DECREE MACMA.No.3,446 of 2009 PARTLY ALLOWED 7