Mallam Omkaram , Omkar v. 1. Mohammed Asifuddin

Counsel for the Appellant Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy : Sri C.Mohan Prakash Counsel for the Respondent No.l & 2 : None Appeared The Court made the following : JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASXAR REDDY MACMA No,62I of 2O 19 JUDGMENT: .l lris appcal r. tiicrl ttt tht, rplrcilant-cliiimallt, undrtr S( cr1or) l,.i ol Ih(, I\1otor Vlhiclts r\(.1. l(]5i agigrtcrlcl i)\'tir( i1\\'arcl dilre(l It 1 r-r 7 2018 rrirsserl ltr tlt( (llliur rnirn, i\,lotor Acctd(_'ltts ClarlLs 'Iltlrurral-r urn'l)r-inc ipal Dislrict .Jurlqe. Nalqoncla (lor shorl thc 'l'r rlrlln:rl"l i:l I\{ \/ () I)\o.n23 ,11 -lOl(r. rrlrert'tI trtc TrilruoaI arr,rrclt d (io[lp( DSa]ion oi lis L.97.St)0/ aioi g u'rth in crrsr .ri il , 1)'i aLnriLlll] ll,rrrr t],r' ii.rt.. ()l iilll:: L,i I).-lltrot tili t]rL: ilr1r' of lrr,.;Ll.rl \\rtl! sLtbs('(llr.-nt inlel.si at 6;, j)ci irnnLlm Ifotn tlrl rl:rtc of irr,,iIcl i ill iii(-daLc o lc.rli..llLnor. 'l'he bricl facLs ol t]tc cas, .ir(,t]ritt rtr O8-OE-2O16 at rrboLrt -1. t.lr) ]) m ,,vhrlc tht apltt,iLarrt !\'its tlirvelllnq,)n ii l\\'o-\,.,hL.cler lllei() llorrda A<:tiva vchi:.lc bcarirrg No 1S O5 E9 .1369) al(,ng $,irh ol(: (i Srirrit as olt th( iljovel brr(lSC irr Sararl<trr. Naglrr, Nalqoird;L '1o,.,,.n, a'IATA Sumo vchiclc bear:ing No AlL23 J-5656, owr-rcd b-y rt'sponclenl No. I arrd drrvctr bv r csp()n(lcDt i'Jo.2, is alleqt:cl to havc bcer clriven ir a ruslt ancl negiirlcnt rn.rnltrr il1 opposite dir<,r.tion antl colliclcd witlr thr ttlo q,ltcclcr. as a resll]t of r,",hich tlic al)l)ellant sustain(,d comtniutrted frar:tu: c oI sllaft of r-rgirt hurncnrs, fracturt, of pcLr,is, gr-icvotrs injur ie s to ri!]ht fool and mrl[iplc otl.rcr injrrries Il is st,rr(.cl that immedialclv after thc E 2 accident, the appellanL was shiltecl to Slr Iiama Orthopaedic Hospital & Trarrma Carc Centrc, Nalgor.rd:r and treatcd as in paticnt fr-onr O(l O8 201() to 1.1-08 20li). rlrercait('r treated as outpatient and thus i]lcurr ed med ical-tr(,a Imcnt expenses of Rs-25,8O0/-. lt rs zrlso stated thar thc Dislrict Mcclical Board issucd a disability certillcatc assessing 35'1.i, p( rmane nt clisabrlity (right arm with restri(.ted rno\,,ement at shouldr-r & elbo,,v .loint). The appellant filed thc aforcsirid O P. iiqainst respondcnt Nos. I to 3 i.c., the orvner ancl rlre driver o[ thc crulte vehiclc and lhc Insurance Company, clairnirrg compcnsation ol lis.4,00,()0t)/- fol thc injuries sustarned by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, rcspor)dcnl Nos.l and 2 i.e., the owner and the drivcr ol the crirrc vchicle rer-trained ex parte an<1 respondent No.3 r e., the lnsurance Compnn_r,[]cd counter denving the averments of the clairn petitron and contended that thc amount claimed is excessive and lrrayed to drsrniss thc claim petitiol.t.

4. Thc Trrbunal, aftcr conducrurg full fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documcntary evidencc, held that the accident occurrcd due to thc rash and ncgllgent driving of the TATA Sumo Vehicle bearing No. AP-23-J-5656 by respondent No.2, in which the appellant sustaincd injuries and awarded compensation of Rs.1,97,800/- as against the claim of Rs.4,0O,O0O/-. Drssatisficd rvith the ql.rantum of compe nsation ''-=:-g,,-i7 3 a\virrded lly Lrl(i '['ril)ultal, the iil]pe lian t -clitu rraDt filed the prcserl a PI)r'al Hear-ti ill. lerrr rri tl cortnsel [or tht. I)ir.tt( S arrcl yX:nrserl tlrr: IEC )ICI () Il is lror rri dispLlt( that (he itppe IIant sLrstajr-rerl injLrrics Ln llrt'rrccrdc'Dr )c( rtrl1.d cltre to tttc Iirsh and llegligcr)t c]r-ivine cf tlrc 'l {1,\ Srrmo rrCrrillq No. Atr 23-J 5()56 b,\' r {,sl)o1.r(leltL No.2. ilrc ()[].. I)oini l:1.t1 itriscs li)r dcterllrilta tiorr itr tltrs apl)Ca,l is l,lretirer. III( f orrll)(--lr:ation :ru,ltrdecl br. '.ltc l'rrbtr ral in la,,.our ol thr. .ll)pclialut clllnliinI is.1ttst and Icasonabkt. .r-. r\ r'ar.lul lterlrsal of the rccor(l sho$s lhat evcll though the nrerlrcaL r:r'rrLen(.c (PW-:2 & PW 3) togcthi.r r't,ith tlr(. Disaltilrtv L e rtillcatc (l,x ,,\8) shorvs that th(' appelLrnt (.larltrant srrslairred DerDrrr)('ut tlrsaltiLrly of 35,/o oi his rigt)t upp(.r liurtr (sl)()rrlder + ,'lbo\\) dllc'o lltc irccldcnt, tlic Triburral. r-eclucccl tlre siunc lo l5'i.HaVing regitrd to tl)c naturc and seventY of injuries, agc ()1-the r'lairnnnt, rlrsaitiliry pe rcentagc, tl)e alrount of colnpensirrLon rrr,,,arded bv thc 'I'ribunal is manifcstll, inrrde(luatc an(l crills lor ( nharlcerncnl. Thereforc. this Court is ol the opinion tllat I)eruran(.11t rlLsabitity of 25o1, is jusr and reasonable. lf that be so, lhe clainianl was only 20 years of age at ti)e time of accidelrt and l.rking irrto consideration his monthly income as Rs.5,OOO/ , his '€:- -' 4 annual incomc $,ould bccolr)c Rs.60,000/- per -v-ear (Rs.J,000 x I2) and thus thc Ioss o[ ea] nlngs sLlstarncd b-v thr: appellanl wrth thc disabihry of 25% u,ould be lts 15.000/- pcr anrmrrl. Il th( suital)lc multiplier '18'. as rightll adopted by the TribunaI, is applied, the loss of earnings on account ol-clrsabiliry rvould bc lts.2,70,OOO/- (Rs.15,O0O x l8) and thc arnot)nl arr,,arderi I.^ the'nibr-rnal under the remaining heads can be maintarncd.

8. Coming to thc ratc oI rntcrcst. as thc Honble Suprcme Court in National l'l.surance Cornpang Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and. others , and in scveral sLlbseqLLent dr:cisions held that t.hc reasonable rate of intercst 1o bc a$'arded in nrotor lrcci<len1 claim cases shall bc 7.5%. pcr annum, this Cot.rrt is of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded b-v the Tribunal. itr the inst:ttrt c ase, is on the Iower side and rcqulrcs nrorlillcatiotr 9 . [n the re sult, the appeal is partly allorvcd atrd t he award dated 31-O7-20i 8 in N{.V.O.P No.828 of 2016 passcd by thc Tribunal is modified b-r, cnhartcing l lrc cornpensa tion from Rs.1,97,80O/- to Rs.3,05,800/- u'ith interest at 7.5ok per annum from the date of petition tilt the date o[ realiz-ation, payable by thc respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally, rvithin a period of two (2) months from the dale of recetpt o[ copy oi this ludgrnent. On lArR 2019 sc 2079 i t 'r -tsa1rfr?.y -7 5 sur'h (t('i)o.si1. thL apPell:rir1 cl.rilna|t is euti:lcd ro rr jil.rjre Y rlir sil ll_(- si .1.tr i, tlt,, ri :j, a-11ilir(.,)Lis l)etiIi)lts pcirci r; i[ .rit,, sllilr snrrci cl(.sc(1. I\lo or(ler irs to costs //TRUE COPY// SD/- M,JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: \_il SECTION OFFICER To, q\/( l. The Chairman. MACT cum principal District Judge, Natgonda 2 One CC to Sri i\rlr.A. Rama Krishna Reddy. Advocate [OpUC] 3 One CC to Sri C.Mohan Prakash, Advocate tOpUCl 4 Two CD Copies '( klE 5 18 lilAB L t o U E c, J:. i l.<. i,fitr HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.621 of 2019 i i ; I i I I I i t l l I I I i I I i i I i : I ! I i I I I ! l I I l I ! I j i I : { PARTLY ALLOWIG THE MACMA u \ \)o [ 32s6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 621 OF 2019 Between : Mallam Omkaram , Omkar, S/o. Kotaiah, aged. 20 Years, Occ Agriculture' R/o' cherukupalli Village of Kethepally [/andal, Nalgonda District, Presently residing at Ravrndranagar, Nalgonda Town and District. . ...Appellant AND

1. Mohammed Asifuddin, S/o. Mohammed Yousufuddin, aged Major, Occ' Business, R/o H.No.8-5-250, Shams Nagar, BTS Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda Drstrict. (Owner of the TATA Sumo bearing No. AP-23-J-5656)

2. Mohammed lliyas,, S/o. Mohammed ltha;a , aged 25 Years' Occ. Driver of TATA Sumo b6aring No. AP-23-J-5656, Rio. Shams Nagar, BTS Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District.

3. The Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd,, Branch Office, Venkateshwara r- Theatre Road, Post Box No.22, Ramagiri Nalgonda Town and District, Rep by its Branch Manager. Appeal under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles against the Ju{gment -and decree in'M.V.O.P.No. 828 of 2016 dated 31-07-2018, on the file of Court of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge Nalgonda. ...ResPondents 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 c.Mohan Prakash, Advocate for Appellant and of Mr.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No 3 and None appeared for the Respondent No.1 & 2 This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the It/otor Accident C vrl lrzliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly- allowed by enhancing the oompensation from Rs.1,97,800 to Rs.3 05.800 with interest at 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petitlon till the date of realization. 2 That the respondent No'1 to 3 shall jointly and severally liable to pay the enhanced compensatton amount within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the appellanUclaimant be and hereby is entifled to

4. That save as aforesard, the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirmed in all withdraw the same. other respects: and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in thrs appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. M.JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR: C'7 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, MACT cum Principal District Judge, Nalgonda 2 Two CD Copies SVS HIGH COURT DATED:1411112025 oK' nES14 a c r!)c o \ \ 1B tirfl lt]2b B .I. {S * i DECREE MACMA.No.621of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWIG THE MACMA \ ,.1 0\ ")" I I