The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to take this matter as "For Being Mention', and direct the Office to correct the order. Counsel for the Appellant SRI C MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI M SATTSH REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATI{I RAO M. A.C.M.A.NO.11.3 0F 2022 luDGMEr{T 'Ihis Apneal is directed against the order and decree dated

06..11.2020 in ().P.No.425 of 2013, passed by the Chairman, N4oror Accidents Claims 'fribunal-cum-l Additional District ]uclge at Nalgonda (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim of the appellant is allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,84 ,000/- with interes;t at 6o/" per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realizati<>n razith proportionate costs.

2. Hearc: N,lr. C.Moharr l)rakash, learnecl counsel for the appellant-clirimant and Mr. M.Satish Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2/in-surance company. Perused the material on record

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that on

28.01 .2073 at about 5.10 a.m., the appetlant /claim petitioner ancl his frierrcl wL're travelling orr [{ero [{onda Unicorn motorcycle from Chandur to (l.Yeclavalli village for attending the work of adjustment of cell tower signals. When they reached outskirts of I(urampally v i I lage, o nc t:'ac t<> r bear i ng regi stra tion N o. A p -24-p -9577 (her einaf ter referred to as 'crime vehicle') came in opposite direction in rash and 2 negligent manner hit the motorcycle of the appellant, due to which, appellant sustained fracture and se'ere injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Primary Health Centre, Chandur and later shifted to NIMS I-lospital, Hyderabad, where the appellant was treated as inpatient and undergone treatment.

3.1. The Police, Kanagar porice station, registered a case in Crime No'6 of 2073 against the driver of crime vehicre arrd firecr charge sheet.

3.2. It is further averred that appellant was aged 22 yearsancl was hale and healthy prior to the date of accide^t and was working as private employee and used to earn [{s.g,000/- per month and contributing the same to his family and he spent an amount of 11s.4,00,000/- for medicine and hospitar expc,nses. Due to the said accide'nt, he was permanently disablecl and unable to do wclrk a.c{ was suffers a lot with pain and suffering and mental agony. As such, tlre claim petitioner filed MVop N..425 of 2013, claimi.g Rs.8,00,000/- for compensation towards the sufferings sustained by hirn.

4. I'he 'fribunal, on due enquiry arrcl on considering the orarl a.d dc-rcument'ary evidence, has categorically held that the acciclent 3 occurred duc, to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its dri'rer and awarded an amount of Rs.4,84,000/- to the appellant/ claim petitioner.

5. Aggr evecl by the same, the appellant/claim petitioner filecl the present Ap1>eal for enhancement of the compensation.

6. "l'he rnain contention of the learned counsel for appellant is, that the J'ritrunal has erroneously assessed the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/-, whereas the appellant claimed monthly income of Rs.9,000/- as unskilled worker being the l-echnician for cell towers a nd .10% of the income towards future prospects was not awarded by the T'ribunal. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for appr:llant placed reliance on the decision of the l-[on'blt: Supreme Co"rrt in shaik sadik shaikh Rafique v. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and othersl.

7. Par crtnlrn, learttctl counsel for the respondent No.2/insurance comPany sutrmitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material pla<:ed on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation anc{ therefore, ancl no grounds are made out tc> interfere with the well considered award passed by the Tribunal. However, he fairly submitted that in sadhana Tomar and others v. | 2025 l.arvSuit (SC 7O7 4 Ashok Kushwaha and others2, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while adverting to the Notification of 2016 under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the monthly income for an unskilled worker was fixeci at I{s.6,500/-.

8. As seen from the record, the appellant/claim petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his allegecl morrthly income of Rs.8,000f -, nor has he adduced any evidence to prove that he was eanrirrg Rs.8,000/- per month from a private job as technician of cell towers. [{e has also failed to examine any witness to establish that he was engaged in any such employment yielding the said income.

9. Considering the fact that the appellant/claim petitioner is statecl to be a tcchnician of cell tower worker, in the absence o[ any docurnentary evidence, his monthly income can be reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/ - as in the case of Malakappa and others Vs. lffco- tokio (leneral Insurance Co. Ltd and another3, arrd accordingly, this Court assess the monthly income of the appellant as Its.8,000/- and the same to be modified to the above extent only for assessing the cornperrsation for permanent disability suffered by the claim petitioner. On perusal of the impugned order, this Court finds 2 202.s ACJ 4 14 3 2025 ACJ I lo9 5 that the anrounts awarded by the I'ribunal under various heads are just and reasonable, and the same shall retnain intact, but, however the appeltant/,:taimant is entitled to be granted interest @ 7.5n/o per annum.

10. Therr:forc, the annual income of the petitioner comes ttr Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8,000/- x L2). After applying '1.8' multiplier:, the income of the claim petitioner comes to Rs.7'/,28,000/ -. On calculation of 40o/o disability, as assossed validly by the Tribunal, the appetlant/clainr petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.6,91 ,200/- and thus, the appellant is entitled for the same towards disability.

11. In vierw of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculatec. as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 2 3 4 5 Corrpensatiorr tor,r'arr{s transporlation to Rs. 10,000.00 hos:ital Cor r pc115.1 liorr ton,a rd s c.xtra rtou ri shnrerrt Rs. 10,000.00 Conrpensation towards me'dical expenses Rs.1.,1O000.00 Conrpensation towards pain and suftering Rs. 30,000.00 for loss oi pleasure and amenities Conrpcnsation towarcls corrlirrrrirrg or Rs.6,91,200.00 nt disability Tot;rl corrrpensation to be paid: Rs.8,51,200.00 1,2. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passr:d try the J'ribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified reducing from Rs.4,84,000/ - to Rs.8,51,200/-, 6 wlrich shall carry intercst at the rale 7.5o/o from the date of the claim petition tilt the date of realization subject to payment of court fee cln the enhanced compensatiou amount.

13. 'I'he responcicnt No.2-insurance company is directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

14. On such clcposit, the apprellant/ctairn petitionc'r is entitled to withdraw the entire comPensation amount.

15. 'fhere shall be no order tts to costs. Pending miscellaneous app'rlicatious if an'n' shall starrcl closecl. SD'. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// OFFICER The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Nalgonda.

2. OnJ CC to Sri C Mohan Prakash, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M Satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies To, 1 ABK Am( i:.''\ d 0 5 tiilR 2028 * f: .i HIGH COUR'I' DATED: 31/,ltll2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.11 3 ot 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA rql)-\26 [ 3485 J IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRry FIRST DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHT RAO Between: Mandali yaladri, s/o. Narasimha, aged 2zygars, occ. private Employee, R/o. Mulkalapally village, Gurrampooe -rr,ranoar, nirgonoa District. irEsenly R/o. Panagal, Nalgonda town and bistii"i. - AND ...AppellanUclaimant 1' Nakrekanti Mallaiah, S/o. Ramulu, age. Ivl_ajor, occ. owner of Tractor.No.Ap- .H Ng 1.-44, Kumindani c,ioer, aooiiigiprit i,' 6irno* 24-p-9s77, R/o. Mandal, Nalgonda District

2. The United l-ndia Insurance Company Limited, rel orrice i'g-3br, pJioimaiii roi",,I, aa.d; sBi Miryalaguda - 508 207 ^-f^r:ht:ffi3erft,Branch ..,Respondents/Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and - Decree in M.V.o.P. No' 425 of 2013 dated 06-11 -2020 on the fite of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additionat District Judge, Nalgonda. oRDER: This appealcoming o1 f9r hearing and upon perusing the grounds of 3P9911' the Judgment and Decree of the Tribuial and the materiJt prp"r, in the yvof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C Mohan prakash, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri M satish Reddy, Advocate ror tre iespondent'No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: compensation from Rs.4,g4,000/_ to Rs. g,51 1' That the MACMA be and-hereby is Partly allowed by reducing the 2' That the reduced compensation amount srralt carry interest at the rate of 7 '5o/o from the date of the ctaim petition till the date of realization subject to payment of court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. ,2OOt_ 3' That the Respondent No.2 r,nrr,1T:: corpr.!.y be and hereby is directed to dr:posit the above "orp"*rtion amount within a period of eight weeks from the date of ,eceiptoflopy of this Order. 4' That on suchdepo.rit, n"-ldpllant r"Lim petitioner be and hereby is entifled to withd-raw tne eniire-iLpensation amount. : i5:in:,:"T:"J,".::'l.t,,;;;;" or the r,io,",i sha, stands conrirmed o. that there shall be no order as to costs in this appeat. //TRUE COPYII SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASS REGISTRAR OFFICER Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_l Additional District To,

1. The Chainnan Motor Judge, Natgonda. 2. Two CD Copies ABK frw". lHE S le ( I o -a tr 5 r{rB lflln z * * .sPAJC HIGH COURT DATED: 3111012025 DECREE MACMA.No.I 13 ot 2O22 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA Af{ \qu-llG