The High Court · 2025

: Sri pailati chandramouti : None Appeared : sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the foilowing COMMON JUDGMENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI .IUSTICD SU.'OY PAUL & THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. RADTIA RANI M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 473 & 8OO of2Ot7 COMMON JUDGMENT: Qter Hon'ble Dr. Justice G.Radha Rant) 'As both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment in M.V.O.P.No.2153 of 2O 11, the same are discussed together'

2. M.A.C.M.A.No .473 of 2Ol7 is frled by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation while M.A.G.M.A.No.800 of 2017 is hled by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the quantum of compensation award.edbytheTribunalinM.V.o.P.No.2l53of2ollanditsliability.

3.Thefactsoftlrecaseinbriefarethattheclairnantwasaged about 21 years. He was a stud-ent of B'Tech third year studying in St.Martin College, Dhulapally. He was also stated to be taking tuitionsforintermediatestud'entspartlimeandwasearning Rs.15,OOO/- per month. It was further stated ttrat on the occasion of New Year eve on the intervening night of 3l'12'2OlO / 01'01'2011 in the midnight at about 01:00 hours, while the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No'AP-28-BL-9303 from Kompa-lly towards Suchitra and when reached in front of Cine Planet, the rider of the motor cycle, the friend of the petitioner (respondent No.1 in O.P.) drove the vehicle in a rash arld negligent 2 SP,J&Dr'GRR,J f,^cfra-473 & 8OO-2O 17 manner with high speed and applied sudden brakes' due 1-o which the claimant fell o:a the road, sustained bleeding injury on head and went un-conscious. ImmediatelY' he was shifted to KIMS HosPital' Secunderabad and was admitted as in-patient till 3 1'O l '2O 1 1' On O5.O 1 .2O 1 1, l- 1.o 1 20 1 1 and 14'0 1'2O 1 1' surgical ope::ations were conducted. It was stated that' his face was disfrgured' his movements were restricted, he sustained permanent disability' his career was badly affectecl, he was constrained to leave his education' PS Pet Basheerbagh, Cyberabad registered' a case in Crime No'1O of 2011 under Sectiorr 338 of IPC against the rider of the motor c-r'cle' The clraimant claimed compensation of Rs 3O'OO'O0O/- from the 4. owner and insurer of the Bajaj Pulsar Motor Vehicle bearLng No'AP-28- BL-9303. The resrpondent No' 1 - owner of the Pulsar motor cycle remained 5 ex-parte. Insurance ComPanY frled counter No.2 6. The r':sPondent complaint was lodged at a belated stage on contending that the |2.o1.2o11 at 19:3o hours, though the accident was alleged to have occurred on 31.12-2OlO' The hospital record of the petitioner wouid reveal that ,rn o1'o1.2011 at a[ouT 02:o0 AM' while ht: was driving a two wheeler met with an accident under the inJluence of alcohol while I 3 SP,J&Dr.GRX"J macma_473 & Eql_2O17 returning from New Year celebrations. It would establish that the case of the petilioner was stage managed and for the purpose of clairning compensation, a false case was foisted, by planting tfre insured vehicle in connivance with the owner of the vetricle. It was further contended that the respondent No.1 (owner of the vehicle) was the friend of the claimant. The said motor cycle was planted in collusion with respondent No.1. In the case of accidents, when the injured was shifted to hospital, it was the duty of the concerned medical officer or the hospital authorities to intimate the same under medico legal case (for short "MLC") immediately to the concerned Police Staliop. But there was no such MLC intimation in the case, as such suspected the involvement of the insured motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-BL-93O3 in the alleged accident. It was further contended that respondent No.l (the driver - cuim - owner of the said motorcycle) was not holding any driving license to drive the said motor cycle and contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as Motor Vehicle Rules, The remand report and charge sheet Iiled against respondent No. 1 also would show that he was not holding any driving license as on the date of accident. As such, charge sheet was filed under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle without driving license. As the respondent No. 1 committed breach of tJ.e terms and conditions of the policy, the petition was liable to be dismissed. 4 SP,J&Dr.GRR,J macma 473 & aoo-2017

6.l.ThelnsuranceCompanyfurthercalledforstrictproofo[theage, the claimant beir:Lg a student of B'Tech third year working as a part time tutor and t]lat he was earning Rs' 15,OOO/- per month' It also called for strict proof of the injuries sustained by the claimant and that he incr.rrred the amounts as alleged by him' The I nsurance Companyfurthercontendedthatthecompensationclaimedbythe claimant was excessive and prayed to disrniss the claim petition against the Insurance Company with costs'

7. The injured was exarnined as PW. 1. A Neurosurgeon of KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad was examined as PW'2' The billing manager of KIMS Hospital was examined as PW'3 and the member of the District Medical Board, Khammam, who issued the disability certificate, was examined as PW.4. Exs'Al to A13 were m arked on behalf of the claimant. The Senior Executive - Legal of the Insurance Company was examined as RW' 1 and the CMO of KIMS Hospital, Secunderabad wzrs examined as RW.2. Exs.Bl to E}7 were marked on behalf of ttt e Insurance Company.

8. On considering the oral ald documentary evjdence on record, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal") considered that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driring of the motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-fl-q3o3 by its rider. 5 SP,J&DricRR,J EacEa_473 & aOO_2O17 9. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal considered the income of the claimant as Rs. 15,O0O/- per month and by adding 5O % of it towards future prospects, considered the same as Rs.22,5OO/- and by applying multiplier "18" and considering the partial and permanent disability sustained by the claimant as 25 yo ascertained the loss of earnings of the claimant as Rs. 12,15,000/-. The Tribunat awarded Rs.3,3O,OOO/- for the medical expenses incurred by the claimant, Rs.3,00,000/- for future medical expenses, Rs. 1,O0,0OO/_ towards pain and suffering and mental agony and Rs.3,00,000/_ for loss of earnings, Rs.2,0O,00O/- towards attendant charges, . extra nourishment and travelling expenses and Rs.1,OO,OOO/_ for loss of marital life, Rs. 1,0O,O00/- for loss of amenities in life, Rs.SO,OOO/_ for physiotherapy and in all awarded an amount of Rs.26,95,0O0/_. considering that the rider of the motor cycle drove the vehicle without driving license, t1le Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded arnount ald to recover the same frorn respondent No.l. The Tribunal directed the Insurance Compary to pay the said amount witlr interest @ 9 o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs and interest.

10. Aggrieved by the said award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant and the Insurance Company preferred these appeals. :i 6 SP'J&Dr.GRR,J macma-473 6G EOO-2O 17 1 1. Heard Sri Pallati Charrdra Mouli, leamed counsel for the claimant and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for thb Insurance ComPanY.

12. t earned counsel for the claimant in M'A'C'M'A No'47!i of 2Ol7 contended that the claimant preferred t]"e appeal seeking enhancement of the award from Rs'3O,OO,OOO/- to Rs'50'00'OOO/-' I.A.No.1 of 2OI7 was filed seeking enhancernent of claim' As per the disability certiflcate issued by PW'4, the appellant sustained'25 7o permanent disability, which was partial and permanent in nature ' But the functional disability was 1O0 Vo. The disability certiljcate was issued only witl. reference to orthopedic injuries sustained by the claimant. The claimalt sustained severe head injuries. As per the evidence of PW.2, the treating doctor in KIMS Hospital, Seculrderabad, the claimant had undergone major surgeries for several times' Due to lack of knowledge, the claimant could not obtain the disabilily relating to head injuries from medical board or from treated doctor' The clairnant was an engineering student - cum - home l-utor. His income was considered as Rs. 15,0OO/ - per month' But the HorL'ble Apex CourtinitsrecentjudgmentinAtulTiwariv.RegionalMarrager, M/s.orientallnsuranceComPanyLimitedldecidedon06.0l.2o2S had considered the notional income of a B'Tech student' who was '2025 SCC Online fiC 29 / SP,J&Di.GRX"J macEe_473 & 800_20 r7 similarly placed as that of the claimant as Rs.2O,OOO/- per month. 7 The Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.1O,0O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering. But awarded only a meager amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and ought to have awarded Rs.3,00,0OO/- towards loss of expectation of life and interest ought to have been awarded @ t2 % per annum instead of 9 oh per annum and prayed to enhance the claim from Rs.30,00,O00/- to Rs.5O,O0,OOO/-.

13. Learned Standing Counsel representing the Insurance Company in M.A.C.M.A.No.8O0 of 2Ol7 on the other hand contended that there was a delay of 12 days in lodging tl:re FIR. As per Ex.A4, tne Shimant was hit by an un-known vehicle and that he was under the influence of alcohol after attending a New Year celebration. No documentar5r evidence was liled by the claimalt to show that the claimant was a student and was earning Rs. 15,OOO/- per month. The Tribunal erred in awarding an amount of Rs.3,30,00O/- when the evidence on record would show that he availed Arograsri for his medical treatment. The Tribunal erred in awarding Rs.3,OO,OOO/- towards loss of earnings when the rnultiplier method is adopted for calculating loss of incorne, which would amount to awarding twice under the same head. The alleged accident was a hit and run by an un-known vehicle. The rider and the pillion rider were under the influence of alcohol. As such, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed tl"e claim. The interest awarded at 8 -..-i?;', t Slfltii 9 7o was on high side. The Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 6 % per allnum ald prayed to set aside the award and decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.2153 of 2OtI by the Tribunal

14. As seen from these rivai contentions, admittediy, the claimalt travelled as a pillion rider on the Bajaj pulsar Motor cycle bearing No.AP-28-BL-9303. The pulsar motor cycle was driven by respondent No.l. As per the claim petition, the motor cycle was not hit by any vehicle, but while the rider of the motor cycre dnving the saine in a rash and negligent manner, applied sudden brakes, due tc, which, the pillion rider fell on the road and sustained breeding injuries on his head and went un-conscious and he was admitted in KIMS Hospital immediately. Ilx.Al is the certified copy of the FIR. Thr: complaint lodged by the fzrther of the injured was enclosed to it. Ever.L as per the complaint, the motor cycle was driven by its ricler in a. rash and negligent manner, due to which, the claimant who was tra,relling as a pillion rider fell down, sustained head injury and fel un,conscious. The delay was a-lso explained by the de-facto complainarrt drat his son was un-conscious even by the date of lodging the complaint on L2.Ol.2Oll and as he was attending his son, could not lodge the complaint imrnediately. Ex.A2 is the final report (charge sheet) hled by Police of PS Pet Basheerbagh.3)s rcr the investigation conducted by the Police also, the vehicle was not hit by an5, un-known vr:hicle. but 9 SP,J&Dr.GRR,rI macma 473 & 8OO 2Of7 the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the rider of t}le motor cycle, who applied sudden brakes, due to which the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous head injuries. It was also mentioned therein that the injured claimant was a B.Tech student in St.Martin College, Dhulapally. Ex.A3 is the injury certiflcate issued by ttre Casualty Medical Offrcer of KIMS Hospital which would disclose that the clajmant was admitted in the hospital on O1.11,2O11 and tJlat he was discharged on 31.01.2011. The injury certifrcate also would disclose that the claimant sustained traumatic CSF rhinorrhoea and diffuse axonal injury. It was recorded i4 the history of the accident that he was hit by an un-known vehicle while travelling on a two-wheeler at around O2:OO AM on O1.O1,2011 near Kompally. This aspect was seriously contended by the learned Standing Counsel' of Insurance Company that the Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle was hit by al un-known vehicle and got examined RW.2, the Casualty Medical Officer working irr KIMS Hospital to prove the said fact. RW.2 stated in his evidence that Ex.A3 was issued by one Dr. K.K. Sai Brahmam and he left the hospital and the said history was recorded by the doctor basing on tJle information given by the patient attendants accompanying the patient. Admittedly, the claimant was in un-conscious state and he was not in a position to give the details of the accident. The father of the claimant, who admitted the claimant 10 SP,J&Dr'GRR'J macma-473 & 80() 2017 in the hospital'ras not an eye-witness to the accident' As such' the same could not be taken as basis for suspecting the clairn As the Investigating Officer after completing the investigation' frled the charge sheet holding that the rider of the motor cycle was alone responsible for the accident for his negligent driving, the manner of the accident need not be suspected. The delay in rodging the report is ar.so properly explained by the father of the claimant while lod ging the complaint enclosed to Ex''A1 itself' As such' this Court is of opinion that the Tribunar had :not committed ary error in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the motor vehicle bearing No'AP-28-BL-9303' 15. However, the charge sheet marked under Ex A2 wc'uld disclose that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding driving license' as such, the charge sheet was frled against him under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act apart from Section 338 of IPC' As the same would prove that the respondent No'1 - owner - cum - driver of the motor cycle committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by driving the vehicle without having a driving license' this Court also does not fintl any illegality in the award passe<l by the Tribunal for "pay ald rec'overy" considering that the claimant was a third party to the Insurance Policy and the l@tor Vehicles Act being a benefrciary legislation. Y / SP,J&Dr.GRR,J macma 473 & 8OO 2Ol7 16. With regard to the amount of compensation, it is averred that 7L the claimant was a B.Tech third year student and no rebuttal evidence was adduced to disprove the same. As such, notional income has to be taken into consideration for calculating the loss of earnings. In B.Ramulamma v. Venkatesh Bus Union, Lingarajapuram, Bargalore arrd another2, the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh on considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and of the various High Courts, held that:

36. As far as the students, who are about to complete their course, are concerned, it is very diflicult to determine their income. Guess work becomes inevitable. But even for guesswork some rationale has to be followed. Every conclusion must be based on sound reasoning and established legal principles. The parents of tl.e deceased with fond hope irnpart educa.tion to their children. Now-a- days the educational expenses have been increased. Even if a student secures a seat in EAMCET under Convener quota, the parents have to bear other expenses, such as hostel fees, books, travelling charges etc. Normally, the parents have to spend at least Rs. 7O,OOO/- to Rs. 1,0O,0OO/- per annum to meet the expenses of their children, who are studying B.Tech or M.Tech or similar courses. Of course expenditure incurred for education cannot be taken as basis for determining the income of the deceased students. After completing their '2oo9 (61 ALT zB4 72 SP,J&Dr.GRR'J macma_473 & 800-2017 education, when they may secure a job, what woulcl be their salary and how long they would havt: continued in their job and how much they would hav,: contributed to their parents are the questions whi,:h necessarily depend upon some guess work' In such circumstances, the evidence of contemporaries or tJle classmates of those students who have secured job and who are getting regular income can be taken as basis.

52. In view of t.I.e present salaries, being earned b'g the Computer Engineers, there cannot be any doubt to say that the deceased would have earned minimum Rs. 12,0OO/- to Rs. 15,0O0/- per mont}l' It has to be seen that now-a-days IV class employees are also getting minimum Rs. 7,000/- trl Rs. 1O,OOO/- per month depending upon their senrice. The Junior Assistants are also getting Rs'' 72,1)oOI- to Rs. 15,O00/- per month. 'lherefore, considering the normal scales being earned by the Government employees and also the minimum wage scales hxed to the technical persons, we are of tJle vierv that the minimum salary of a technical person., who is holding a bachelor degree in computers or eleotronics or mechalical, can be taken as Rs. |2,OOO/- per month. Therefore, the income of the graduates in engineering i.e, B.Tech, cannot be lrxed less thal Rs. |2,OOO / - per month, otherwise :.t am,lunts to neglecting the ground reality. Similarly those who have completed M.Tech, MCA, MBA, the income of such persons can be hxed a little higher i.e. at Rs. t 5,OO0/- fri-not trr. This will take care of r 13 SP, .I & DT.GRR' .I macma-473 & 8OO-2Of7 the additional income which they would have earned in course of their service.

17. Relying on the above judgment, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended tJlat the notiona-l income of a B.E graduate can be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month. But in the present case, the claimant was a student of B.Tech. third year but his notional income was taken as Rs.15,000/- per month by the Tribunal, which was more than the income frxed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in tJle above case, as such the same needs to be reduced.

18. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand was that the accident in the said case was occurred in the year 1995. But in the present case, the accident occurred on 3l .l2.2OlO i.e. 15 years later. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Atul Tiwari v. Regional Marager' Oriental Insurance Company Limited (cited supra) for the accident occurred on O3.1O.20O9 considered the notional income of a student as Rs.2O,00O/- per month as against Rs.15,000/- taken by the Tribunal basing on the efflux of time ald changed economic scenario and insisted for taking the notiona-l income of the clairnalt as Rs.20,O0O/- per month. Ig. However, in the above case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it was proved that the said claimant was a meritorious student' But, in the present case, no such evidence was adduced to consider the \ L4 SP,J&Dr.GRR,J macma 473 & 8OO 2017 academic excellence or the merit of the present claimant. However, as the Tribunal considered the notional income of the appellant - claimant as Rs.15,000/- per mont}, more than the income considered by the High Court in the case of Ramulamma (cited supra) and an addition of 50 9uo of it is also added towards future prospects as per the judgment of the National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethis, we consider that the amount of Rs.22,500 / - taken by the Tribunal as loss of income for assessing the loss of future earnings is justifrable.

20. The evidence of PW.2, the Neuro Surgeon of KIMS Hospital would disclose that tJle claimant sustained an open tLead injury (traumatic CSF Rhinorrhea), diffuse axona.l injury, multiple fractures of left side of t-he skuli bones, sub-arachnoid bleeding and bilateral pleural effusiorr right more than left, with- collapse of right lower limb of lung. It was also stated by PW.2 that the patient was in coma score of E-1, M-4 B-1 6/ 15 (severe head injury). He was admitted in neuro ICU with ventilator support. He was on antibiotics, anti conlulsants and anti oderna measures and was on Ionotropic supports. He developed CSF Rhinorrhea (Cerebro Spinal Fluid - leak from the nose). On O5.O 1 .2O 1 1 , a bicoronal flap surgery and frontal craniotomy was performed on hrim. ACF repair witty,fascialata and pericranium was / 1 (2Ot7) t6 scc 6,80 Y 7' 15 SP,J&Dr.GRR,J raacma 473 & 8(X) 2Ol7 performed on 05.01.2011. After ttre surgery also, the claimant was found to be drowsy, as such a CT-scan brain was done, which revealed diffuse cerebral edema. For prolonged ventilator support, he had undergone tracheostomy on 11.01.2011. As he was not showing any signs of improvement, another surgery i.e. bilateral fronto temparo craniotomy was performed on 14.O1.2011. He stated that the said injuries were grievous in nature. 2L. He further stated that the patient was admitted for second admission on O2.O7.2O11 for replacement of skull bone (BFR), which bone was kept in abdomen wa,ll on L4.OL.2OII and was dischaiged on

12.07.2011. He stated that the claimant required further surgery for defect in the front skull bones, for which foreign titanium mash was required, which would cost €rn amount of Rs.3,OO,0O0/-, as per trx.AlO. He further stated that the patient could not srnell because of fracture forehead skull base fracture.

22. In the cross-examination, PW.2 also stated that there was weakness under lower limb at ttre time of second admission and discharge. The knee deformity was because of RTA. But the main injury was that of head and chest. He further stated that it was compulsory for the patient to undergo further surgery because there was deformit5r over the forehead. He stated that he had not mentioned 16 SP'J&Dr.GRR'J macma-473 A AOO-2OL7 in the discharg€' summary about the lack of sense of smell of patient' as the patient was in coma at that time'

23.-Thus,theevidenceofPw.2woulddisclosethattheciairnanthad undergone thre,e surgeries. One on O5'O1'2O11, second one on 1 1.01.201 1 an,C third one on l4.Ol.2oll and craniotomy was performed on him and the claimant sustained deformJty due to fracture forehea.d of skull and he was unable to smell beczruse of the injuriessustainedbyhimtohisskullandthathea]sorequired another major surgery with cranioplasty, which would require Rs.3,OO,0OO/- a.s per the estimation given by PW'2'

24. Thus, con sidering the evidence ol PW.2, which would disclose that the clairnant was admitted as in-patient in KIMS Hospital from O1.O1.2O11 to 31.O1.2O11 and had undergone three surgeries and was admitted for the second time once again on 02 'O7 '2Ol I and was admitted as in-patient for a period of 10 days and was discharged on L2.O7.2011 ancl was in comatose condition for several darrs and was on prolonged ventilator treatment, the amount of Rs 1 ,OO,OO0/ - awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is colrsidered as meager. The zrppellant - claimant ought to have been awarded an amount of atleast Rs.2,OO,0OO/- towards pain and suffering ' 7 r t7 sP, J & Dr.cRR, J macma-473 & EOO-2O17

25. The evidence of PW.3, the billing rnanager of KIMS Hospital would disclose that the clairnant paid an amount of Rs.3,3O,O0O/- under Ex.AS. As such, the appellant - claimant was entitled to receive the said amount towards the actual medical expenses incurred by hirn

26. As the evidence of PW.2 would disclose that the claimant required an amount of Rs.3,O0,00O/- for further surgery, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- for his future medical expenses, which requires no interference by this Court.

27. The Tribunal awarded arr amount of Rs.3,0O,O00/- towards loss of earnings. However, as the claimant failed to adduce any evidence that he was earning as a part time tutor while studying and that he sustained aly actual loss of earnings and the loss of future earnings is considered basing on a notional income, this Court considers that there is no necessit5r to award any amount under this head. As such, the same is required to be deleted.

28. The evidence of PW.4, the member of the District Medica,l Board, Khammam would disclose that the claimant appeared before the Medical Board on O3.1rO.2Ol2 and after examining him, he issued the disability certihcate Ex.A9, which was counter-signed by the Medical Board Chairman. As per Ex.A9, PW.4 stated that the claimant sustained 25 % disability, which was partial and permanent. As per \ 18 SP,J&Dr.GR&J macma 4?3 & 8OO-2O17 the learned counsel for the claimant' PW'4 being an orthopedic civil surgeon had i'ssued the disability certihcate only assessing ttre disability sustained by the claimant to his knee' but not considering the head injur5' sustained by him' But if the sarne was true' the claimant or the learned counsel for the claimant ouglrt to have obtained the opinion of PW'2 with regard to the disability sr'rstained by the claimalt basing on the head inj uries sustained by him' But the evidence of PW.2 is silent on the said aspect. He only stated that the claimant could not smell' The claimant ought to have shown his entiremedicairecordtoPW.4whileobtainingtheclisabili['-certifrcate. As such, it has to be considered that PW'4 aJter considering the entire med.ical record of the petitioner and after making al independent assessment had only given the disability certihcate marked under Ex.A9 as 25 oh

29. Considen-ng the photograph of the claimant pasted on the disability certilicate also, his head injury appeared to be healed by the date of issuing the said certihcate on 03' 10'2012' As such' as the physical disability sustained by the claimant is assessed by an experienced doctor, the member of the Medical Board and assessed the same as 25 ok and the evidence of PW' 1 is a-lso silent about the functional diszLbility sustained ty4tim and the difhculties laced by him in conducting his normal functions, it is considered that th.e 25 o/o 7 -""-"11;it?i;1}t i functional disability taken by the Tribunal is also proper. As such, we 79 do not deem it necessa5r to interfere with the calculation made by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings sustained by the claimant. Considering the judgment of ttre Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla \Ienna .others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothera, as the multiplier is taken as "18" and the loss of earnings is calculated as Rs.22,5OO/- x 12 x 18 x 25 o/o : 12,L5,OOO I -, the same is accepted.

30. Considering the prolonged treatment taken by the claimant in a reputed hospital and as some of his family members might have attended to him during the above period ald might have iniurred amounts for extra nourishment and travelling, the amount of Rs.2,O0,OOO/- awarded by the Tribunal for all these expenses i.e. attendalt charges, extra nourishment and travelling is considered as reasonable. 3 1. As the evidence of PW .2 would disclose that the petitioner had sustained loss of smell, the arnount of Rs.I,OO,OOO/- awarded towards loss of amenities in life by the Tribunal is also considered as reasonable. However, as there is no evidence that the petitioner had sustained any difficulty for performing marriage, no amount ought to have been awarded by the Tribuna1 for loss of marital life. As such, the arnount of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- awarded by the Tribr.rnal under the said ' (2OO9l 6 SCc 121 20 SP,J&Dr.GRR,J macma_473 & BOO_2Olz head need to be deleted. As the evidence of pws.2 and 4 is a_lso silent with regard to any physiotherapy required by the claimant and no bins for physiotherapy were a-lso encrosed by the claim:rnt, the said amount of Rs.50,O0O/- awarded by the Tribunal also need to be deleted. 32. As such, this Court considers it reasonable to award the following amounts under the following heads: S. No. Heads oS Ef arnln S SLo Medical Fu ture Me Pain and Sufferin Attenda nt charge s, extra nortrishment and travelling 1 c 4 5 6 Amount of Compensation awarded ia Rs. Rs. 12 15 oo0 Rs.3,30 ,oo0 Rs.3 o0 000 Rs.2 00,ooo Rs.2,O0,0OO/- Loss of am TotaI enttres ln life ln Rs. Rs. 1,00,oo0 Rs.23 ,45,oool-

33. We a_lso consider it appropriate to award interest @ 7.5 %;o per annurn instead of 9 yo interest per annum as awarded by the Tribu-na1. 34. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.SOO of 2Ol7 filed by the tnsurance company is arlorved reducing the compensation from Rs.26,9s,ooo/_ awarded by the I,ribunal to Rs.23,45,OO0/_ and M.A.C.M.A.No .473 of 2OLZ filed by the claimant is dismissed confirming .he compensation of Rs.23,45,o00/- witrr interest @ 7.s o/o per annum. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit Jhe above amount uithin a period of eight (08) weeks fiom thr : date of receipt of a copy of this judflment by / 7 21 SP,J&Dr.GRR,J rD.acma 473 & aoo 20L7 deducting the arnount already deposited by it if any and the claimant is permitted to withdraw the said arnount without furnishing any security. The Insurance Company is permitted to recover the said amount from respondent No. I after its deposit. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in these appeals, if any shall stand closed. Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// secrroWirr rcER / To, records, if any) '1 . The Xlll Additional Chief Judge(FTC)-City Civit Court, Hyderabad.(with 2. One CC to Sri Pallati Chandramouli, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies V* ), f I / HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112025 COMMON JUDGMENT+ COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.473 ot 2017 AND MACMA.No.8O0 of 2017 ,\ o \dE SrAr6' 11l.1rHM P t;) *- ,r) DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.473 ot 2017 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.80O of 2017 Jrl IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI MACMA NO:47 3 AND 800 0F 2017 MACMA NO: 473 OF 2017 Between: B Stivaji€/o Tulasiramaged_27 years Occ presenily Nil (previousty B.Tech I[ Year Student Cum-Part Time Tutor), R/o H.No-. 4_63141316,' Esamia Bazar, Koti, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER ! Naga Raju S/o Srinivas Rao Aged Maior. Owner of pulser l/otor cvcte tsearing no. AP 28 BL 9303 Rlo 4-97, Dutai:aily Road, Kompaily R R. Disirict at Hyderabad. B-qa1_Allianz General lnsurance co. Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manaqer (craims) Far. East Plaza, 3-6-11118, ll Floor Street nb. 18, Main noao, Hi.avatnagil Hyderabad - 29. AND

1. 2 MACMA NO: 800 OF 2 017 Between: ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS M/s Bajqj- Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch .Manager, Far East plaza, 3-6-11'1/8,' ll Floor, Street flo. i A fif ain Road, Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT/2nd Respondent AND 1 B. Shivaji S/o Tulsiram, aged about 25 years, resident ot 4-6_314t316, Esamaia Bazar, Kati Hydera6ad.

2. R.Nagaraju S/ Bearing No. A Reedy District OS P2 n n ivasa- Ra o Ased Majo r, 6[:::3i B5,iJi "#J#"&:,: 8 B.L. 9303. Rlo 4-97.'Dulapaliy Road Kompally Rahga ...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No. 1 Appeals filed under section 173 of MV Act against the order and decree dated 18-10-2016 passed in MVop No.2153 of 2011 on the court of the Xilt Additional Chief Judge(FTC)-City Civit Court, Hyderabad. --7 These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri pallati chandranrouli, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No.473 of 2017 and for the Respondent No. .l in MACMA No. 800 of 2017 and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 in MACMA No 473 of 2017 and for Appellant in MACMA No. 800 of 2017 and ncne appeared for the Respondent No. 2 in I\iIACMA NO.473 of 2017 and for the appellant No.2 in MACA/A No. 800 of 2017 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the IVACIVA No. 800 of 2017 filed by the lnsurance Company be and hereby is allowed reducing the compensation from Rs.26,95,000i_ awarded by the Tribunal to Rs. 23,45,000/-

2. That the MACMA No 473 of 2O1Z filed by the claimant is .dismissed confirming thei compensation of Rs. 23,4S,OOO1- with interest @ 7.5o/o per an num;

3. That the lnsurance company be and hereby is directed to deposit the above amount within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by deducting the amount arready deposited by it if any and the claimant is; permitted to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

4. That the lnsur,ance company be and hereby is permitted to recover the said amount from respondent No. 1 after its depodit.

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/- P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR secrrdir.riirrcen

1. The Xlll Additional Chief Judge(FTC)_City Civit Court, Hyderabad 2. fwo CD Copies; o To, HIGH COURT DATED: 2110112025 r' COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.473 ot 2017 AND MACMA.No.8O0 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.473 of 2017 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.8OO ot 2017