The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1 . Dissatished with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Clainrs Tribunal-cum-lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in O.P.No. 1338 of 2011, dated 06.05.2014, the claim petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

2. For the 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 claim petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 and 163-,{ of M.V.Act, 1988 and Rules 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 read with Section 140 of M.V.Act, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,OOO/- from the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15.O1.2O11 at about 8.30 p.m. It is stated by the I petitioner/ injured that on 15.01.2011 at about 8.3O p.m., when the petitioner/ injured was proceeding on his Scooty bearing No.Ap- 1OT-8219 from Boduppal towards his residence ald when he reached near St.Anthony's Church, Mettuguda, at thal_ time, one Car bearing No.AP-10AJ-231S came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner,s Scoot5r from behind. 2 MGP'J MACMA.No.1311 ol 2016 As a result, the petitioner fel1 down and sustained grievous injuries on various body parts

4. Based on a complaint, Police of Chilkalaguda Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2011 under Section 337 IPC, took up investigation and filed charge sheet against the driver of the crime vehicle. It is stated by the petitioner that at the time of accident, he was aged 35 years and used to earn by working as a daily wage worker and due to the injuries sustained in the accident, he is unable to attend his work and hence filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondents 1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.

5. Respondent No. 1, owner of the Car bearing No.AP-1OAJ- 2315, did not file any counter.

6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company fiied its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, age, income, manner of accident, injuries sustained to the petitioner and contended that the driver of the crime car do not possess valid and effective Driving License to drive the said vehicle and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

7. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- I I \ I I ! I MGP,J MACMA.Na.1311 ol 2016 (4 tii) Wether the pleaded accident had occurred resulttng irr injuies to the petitioner, B.Ramesh, due to the rash artd neqligent diuing of the motor uehicle bg its driuer? Wether the petitioner is entitled to anA compensation and if so, at uhat quantum and uhat is the liabilitg of the re spondents? (iit) To tulrut reliej?

8. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured, in order to substantiate his claim, got examined himself as PW I and got marked Exs.Al to A3. On behalf of Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B I -lnsurance Policy was marked with consent.

9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the I claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.29,O0O/- along with interest @ 7o/r' per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Being not satislied with the said compensation amount, the petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement ol' the same.

10. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/ injured, Sri K.Venkata Ramana, leamed counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri T.Mahender Rao, learned Stalding Counsel for Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Perused the entirdrecord including the grounds ol Appeal. II 4 MGP..I MACMA.No.1j11 of 2016

11. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellant/ injured are fhat the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured @ Rs.S,OOO/- per month and ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- under the Head of Loss of earnings during treatment period; ought to have awarded a sum of Rs-5,00O/- each under the Heads of Attendant charges and Extra Nourishment; ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- under the heads of Pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the Head of Loss of amenities in life; a sum of Rs.S,OOO/- under the Head of Physiotherapy charges and ought to have granted more compensation towards medical expenditure, extra nourishment I and transport to Hospital and hence, prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded adequate compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary.

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is , (il Wltether the order passed by the learned Tibunal requires interference of this Court? I I 5 MGP,l MACJIA.No.1311 oJ 2016 POINT:-

14. It is pertinent to state that though the petitioners have Iiled claim petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, but the learned Tribunal considered the petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act, framed charges, came to conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence on part of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded reasonable compensation.

15. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner/ injured examined himself as PWl, reiterated the contents of the claim petition and dcposed about the manner of accident and injuries sustained by him and got marked Exs.Al to A3. Ex.Al- FIR shows that Police of Chilkalguda Police Station, Hyderabad, registered a case in Crime No.38 of 2011 under Section 337 of IPC. Ex.A2 is the Discharge Card issued by Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, which shows that the petitioner was diagnosed for Grade-l Compound Left Bimalcolan Fracture and fracture injury for left ankle for the period from 22.OL.2Oll to 26.01.201 1. Ex.A3 is the X-ray film.

16. Therefore, from the above oral evidence of PWl coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.A I to A3, it is held to be proved that the petitioner sustained fracture injury in the accident 6 MGP.I MACMA.No.1311 ol 2A16 that occurred on 15.01.2011 which frnding of the Tribunal attained finality and requires no interference by this Court.

17. The contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant/ injured in the present Appeal are that the learned Tribunal, considering the occupation of the appellant as a religious preacher, ought to have awarded a sum of Rs. 10,00O/- under the Head of Loss of earnings during treatment period and also ought to have awarded amounts under the Head of attendant charges, extra nourishment, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, and Physiotherapy charges.

18. It is pertinent to mention that though the Appellant stated that he is a religious preacher, but the contents of FIR shows the occupation of the petitioner/injured as 'Labourer'. When there is contradiction in the statement given by the petitioner, he ought to have placed some proof. When there is no proof to show that the petitioner is a religious preacher, this Court is inclined to consider him as a 'Labour'.

19. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.25,0O0/- towards fracture injury; Rs.2,000/- towards Medical expenditure; Rs. 1,O00/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1,0OO/- towards transportation I I \ I I 1 MGP,J MACMA.N).1311 ol 2016 which in total arrived at Rs.29,000/- . As rightly stated by the petitioner/ injured that he was totally bedridden for a period of two months and lost his earnings for the above two months, but no amount for Ioss of income is. granted by the learned Tribunal. Hence, this Court, considering the date of accident, occupation of the petitioner/ injured as a Labour, is inclined to grant a sum of Rs.9,OO0/- towards loss of earnings during treatment period for two months by considering his monthly income @ Rs.4,SOO/-. Further, considering the fact that as the petitioner/ injured sustained fracture injury, it would become difficult for him to perform his day to day works without the help of an attendant. Hence, this Court considers desirable to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.S,OOO/- towards loss of amenities in life; Rs.5,000/- towards physiotherapy charges, Rs.20,0OO/ - torvards Pain and suffe ring apart from the compensation granted by the Tribunal. Hence, the total compensation to which the petitioner/injured is entitled to, is calculated as uttder: - S.No. Namr: of the Head Amount awarded Tribunal lAmount lawarded by I this court I

1. 2 Loss of earnings for 2 months Attendant charges I Rs.9,000/- Rs.5,000/- I I I I I 8 I . | 1i."" "' amenities in I MGP,I MACMA.No.13l1of 2016 Rs.5,000/- Rs.s,000/- I Rs.20,00O/- Enhanced to Rs. 10,000 Enhanced to Rs.5,000 I I Physiotherapy charges Pain and suffering One Fracture injury Rs.25,o00/- Medical expenditure Rs.2,000/- Extra nourishment Rs. 1 ,000/ - I Transport TOTAL Rs.1,O00/- Rs.29,OOO/- Rs.75,OOO/- 4 5

6. 7 8 9

20. It is pertinent to mention that as far as the amount awarded towards fracture injury is concerned, this Court considers the same to be proper and is not inclined to interfere with the same. But as far as the amounts awarded towards extra nourishment and medical expenditure are concerned, this Court linds the said amounts to be meager and requires enhancement. Hence, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal and hereby award a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards Medical expenditure and Rs.S,OOO/- towards Extra nourishment as mentioned above.

21.. Further, as seen from the impugned judgment, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 7o/o per annum on the compensation amount which this Court frnds to be meager and is inclined to interfere with the same ald hereby enharlces the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 60/o per aflnum to 7.5%o per annum by I I \ 9 M6P,1 MACMA.N1.1311 of 2016 relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersr

22. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No. 1311 of 2016 filed by the appellant/injured is partly- allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.29,00O/- to Rs.75,0O0/, along with interest @ Z.S% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severaily within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appe llant/ injured is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs.

23. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. TIRUMALA DEVI AS IS I\NT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- lX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad(With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri K Venkata Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri T Mahender Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies To, \ ADK/gh +y I 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 3s i I HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 a i ,tE SEAI( €t ( a J .) t 2r $n 66 * a s 3 fAT etl ( >z a ,\ 2 DRAFTS JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1311 of 201G PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS @ q &d elx IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1311 OF 2016 Between: B. Ramesh, Wo Shivaiah, Aged 38 years, Occ: Nil, R/o H.No 1 539-137 I 1 137 lB, Anna Nagar, Begumpet. AND 1 P Kesavan, S/o Late. Sri, Achutan Nair, Aged major, occ: Student, R/o H.No. 12-7 -1 6215, Ayappa Nagar, Mettuguda, Hyderabad. 2 TATA AIG General lnsurance Co., Rep by its Reglonal Manager Chaitanypuri, Hyderabad ...AppellanUPetitioner .. Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19BB against the Order and decree in O.P No..1338 of 2011 dated 06 05.2014 on the file of the Court of the 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 Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K Venkata Ramana, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri T lvlahender Rao, SC for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil tt/liscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly- allowed;

2. That the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced the from Rs.29,000/-to Rs.75,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; without furnishing any security; 3 That Upon such deposit' the apperant/injured is entired to withdraw the same 4' That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court sha, stands confirmed 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. in all other respects; and //TRUE COPY// ^"ii,';i;lf'#t',$RiH ECTION OFFICER ili [:fiiT5flt :ra.ims rribunar-cum- rX Additionar chief J udge, city ,, To, 1 ADK w HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.1311 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @ +r.. e{d,( $E lrA ,(: k ,J 2 4 HAr{ 2025 '( I .t\ 1/ --r2'