The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appr:al is filed by the Insurance Companl'. aggrieved by the Order and l)ecree dated 2l.Ol.2O2 1 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2018 passed by the ()hairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional Dirilrict Judge, (FTC)., Warangal (for short "the Tribunal").

For conr,,enience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they r,,,,ere at'rayed before the Tribunal.

3. The cas,: of the petitioner before the Tribunal vras that on

14.12.2017 at about 19:30 hours, the deceased u'as going along with his relative by riding his Hero Honda Shine I\llotor Cycle br:aring No.TS-03-JTR-8931 coming towards Pasra ancl rvhen they u'ere about to reach the bus stop, he saw art unknown vehicle coming from Pasra, and so he had taken his vehicle to a side to stop it, but zL Lorry bearing No.Ap-24-U-993 I was parked there negligently rizithout any indicator and without taking any precautions, is such, he hit the parked lorry and iell rlown on the road along with his relative, as a result he sustained g::evious head injury and was immediately shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal and from there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, "ryhere he was treated as an in patient and was discharged on ./ I 2 ETD,J MACMA No.367 2021

27.12.2017, but again he was readmitted on 28.12.2017 and was discharged ot O2.O1.2O78, due to the said injuries, he became permanently disabled. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.25,70,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 rcmained cx-parte

5. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying thc averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident ancl the age, avocation and income o[ the petitioner. They furlher contended that the petitioner was not wearing helmet at the time ol the accident and that the accident occurred duc to his own negligence and that the respondent No.2 is not at all liable to pay any compensation to t-he pctitioner.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 2 Wheth.er the petitioner sustained injuies in rnotor uehicle accident on account of rash and negligent diuing of LorrA bearing No.AP-24U-9931 driuen by its diuer? Wlether the petitioner is entitled to compensation If so, to uhat amount and from whom?

3. To tuhot relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWI and 2 and Exs.Al to A6 and X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the I I I ETD,.' MACMA No.367 2021 respondents rro lral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B 1 an,l 82 were marked

8. Bast:d on Lhe cvidence on record, the Tribunal Lras arvarded a compensation oi Rs.37,69,2OO/-. Aggrieved by the said order and dccree, the prescnt appeal is filed by the Insurance Cr>mpany.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Aj ay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. No rt presentation on behalf of the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitte,l that the Tribunal has fuiled to appreciate the fact that the petitioner was negligent and thus went and hit against the parked iorry and that ignoring the said fact, the Tribunal has arvarded huge compensation to the petitioner. He further argued that in the absence o;,.n',, proof, the Tribunal has taken the inc,tme of the pelitioner as ?s.6,000/ - per month and that the Tribunal has further anvardr:d huge amounts under various heads and granted exorbitant corrrpcnsation to the petitioner. He further a-rgued that there is a delay of (7) days in lodging the FIR and that the Tribunal faileri to cons,ider that it is only due to the negligence of the petitioncr thart the accident occurred and that there is no negligencc ol the parked lorry and therefore, he prayed to cxonerate the insurer from liability. 4 ETD,] MACMA No.367 2021 t2 Based on the above submission of learned counsel for the appcllant, this Court frames the following points for determination:

1. Whether the compensation granted bg the Tribunal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Trtbunal need ang interference? To uthnt relieJ?

4. Point No.1: 13 a) A perusal of FIR under Ex.Aland charge sheet undcr BX.A3 reveals that the charge sheet is fiied against the lorry driver and the contents of the charge sheet reveal that the lorry. rvi." 1"1i o,'l the road without any indicators, safety mcasurcs a nd in a negligent manner. It is further mentioned that the injured petitioner and his wife were going on the motor bike towards Pasra, meanwhile, when they reached near Pasra Village at about 19:45 hours, one unknown vehicle was coming in the opposite dircction and that due to the shining of the lights of the opposite vehicle, the injured petitioner took aside his vehicle and thus, dashed to the parked lorry bearing No.AP-24U-9931. Thus, it is evident from the record that since the lorry- was parked negligently without any indicators and the injured petitioner could not observe the same and went and hit against the parked lorry, as he diverted his vehicle, when he saw an unknown vehicle coming in the opposite 1 dilection towards him." Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the lorry by its oo? driver and it is held that there is no negligence of the petitioner in 5 ETD,] NIACN|A No.367 2021 I the occurrence rf the accident. Point No. I is answered accordingly. L4. Point No.2:- b) The contention of the appeilant counsel is that the compensation rrvarded by the Tribunal is too exorbitant and is morc than the ,:laim of the petitioners. c) A perusa I of Ex.A2 reveals that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuri,:s i.e., one brain injury and another is the fracture to the n-randible. MLC issued by the Yashoda Hospital also reveals the said inluries, along with two more injuries, i.e., laceration of tongue ar-rd ablasion on right foot. d) The clischarge summary under Ex.AS discloses that he was admitted ori 15.12.2017 and discharged on 27.12.2017, '.hlle surgery tas conducted on 19.12.2017. lt discloses about the de tails of the reatment given to the petitioner for his injuries and at the time of discharge, he was advised with medication and also for a review alter two weeks. Another discharge summary issued bv Yashoda Hospital under Ex.AS reveals that he was again admitted on ),8.12.2017 and discharged on 02.01.2018 and the diagnosis in the said discharge summary reveals that the petitioner suffered u,ith severe traumatic brain injury, lelt temporal ./ 6 ero,t \ MACMA No.367 2021 contusion, Post ORIP +IMF of facial bones and tracheostomy status e) It is elicited that the patient underwent surgery earlier, but he was found to have quadriparesis, which was thoroughly evaluated, patient was discharged, but again readmitted. A bunch of X-rays and other diagnostic receipts and medical bills are filed by the petitioner. In view of the injuries sustained by him and the treatment underwent by him. This Court opines that the compensation that can be awarded in the prescnt case is Rs.2,OO,OOO/- under the head of pain and suffcring. 0 He filed medical bills to an extent of Rs.4,78,26O/ - and Rs.85,696/- towards the inpatient final bills of Yashoda Hospital on two instances, apart from which he also underwent treatment in Guardian Multi Speciality Hospital, and also has filed sevelal medical bills. In addition to the medical expenses, the petitioner might have incurred some amount of expenditure towards extra nourishment, transportation and other incidental expenses. Considering the entire evidence on record and all the additional elements put together the amount awarded towards medical expenses and treatment as RS.15,OO,OOO/- by the Tribunal appears to be just and reasonable. g) The case of the petitioners is that the petitioner was an \iculturist and that he used to earn Rs.6,00O/- per month prior / I I I I I I I ETO,I [4ACt\4A No.367 2021 to the accident and that he suflered huge loss of earnings due to the accident. Nr proof is filed in this regard. ln Ramachand.rappa Vs. Manager, Rogal Sundaram Alliance Insuro,nce Company Linitedl, the Al)ex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income u'ith regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per mo.eth can be sale ly taken as thc income. But in the present case, ttre accident occurred in Lh<: year 2Ol7 and the inj ured- petitioner staled to have been an agrir:ulturist, thus, his income could not be; less than Rs.6,000/ 'l'he refore, on a reasonable hypothesis ,rncl in view of tl'rc prinr:ipl: l:iid down in Ramachandrappas's casr', tl-re monthly ir.rcome of the leceased is assessed as Rs.6,0OO/- per month which is just and rcasonable. h) Conside ring the period of hospitalization in two spells, and the nature ol' treatment underwent by the petitioner, it is opined that he must have taken atleast six months to recover from the injuries. Ther:fore, loss of earnings is assessed as Rs.6,000 x 6 = 36,OOO/-. i) The petitioner has not hled any disability certificate, but the Tribunal has mentioned in its order that it has referred the petitioner to Government Hospital and obtained a report of his health. Tht: t:ibunal has further held that considering the medical reports of the MGM Hospital, it has assessed the functional ' {l0l l) lt s('( 2:6 8 I TD,l -. . MACMA No.367 1021 disability of the petitioner as 8O7o. The Tribunal has discussed I about the medical report stated to have been obtained from the MGM Hospital, but it does not lorm a part of the record. The said report is neither marked nor placed in the file. Thus, nothing is there on record to show the disability sustained by the petitioner so as to assess any loss of future prospects or loss of future earnings. In the absence of any evidence, it is not proper to award compensation towards loss of future earnings. Thus, an amount of Rs.9,79 ,2OO I - awarded by the Tribunal towards continuing permanent disability is found to be without any basis. It is also noticed that the compensation that is awarded under the head of attendant charges is also multiplied with the multiplier specified for the age of the petitioner i.e., the attendant charges are assessed at Rs.S,OOO/- per month and per annum it is taken as Rs.60,OO0/- and the same is multiplied wilh'77'and arrived at a compensation ol Rs. 10,20,000/-, which is also not proper as per the prevailing law. j) In all, thc petitioner is entitled to the following compensatiorl amounts: SI.N o

1. Name of the heads Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Awarded by this Court Rs. 2,00,000/ 2 a.\.. : Compensation under the heads hospitat, medical transport, extra nourishment and other incidcntal 1s,00,00oi - 9 2 exl)en SES Compens ltion sk montlr s) (6,00Ox6 Total for loss of earn ings (past i I ETD,] \lACt\lA N0.367 2021 36,00 17,36,0OO/- Hence, it is hcld that the compensation qrant3d b], th. Tribunal is crccssive Point No.2 is ansrvcred accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- It is four rd that in view of the findings arrive(l at Point No. I and 2, thc order and decrce of thc Tribunal need 1r) be modified, rerlucing thc quantum ol compensalion. This Court has; arrived at a compertsirtion of Rs. 17,36,OOOl-, rvhile the Triburral has granted an amount ol Iis.37,69,200/ - Point Nc.3 is answered accordingly

16. Point N,r.4:- In the rt:sult, the MACMA fitcd by the Insurance Company is allowed, redu,:ing the quantum of compensation i.e., awarded by thc Tribunal rom Rs.37,69,2OO1- to Rs.17,36,O001- setting aside thc Order anc Decree dated 21.O1.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.252 of 2O18 passed by thc Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, (FTC)., Warangal and the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from tht: d;lte of ciaim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to _/ 10 EIO,) MACMA No.367 2021 deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appelrant is entitred to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Miscellaneous pctitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL D PUry REGISTRAR I ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Smt Justice Ti (For Her Lordships kind Perusal) ala Devi Eada To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Vlll Additional District Judge (FTC) at Warangal.

2. 11 LR Copies 3. The Under Secretary, Union of lndia, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi

4. The Secretary, Advocates Association Library, High Court for the State of Telangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad

5. One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CD Copies ABK YY HIGH COURT DATED: 251041202!t JUDGMENT MACMA.No.367 of 2021 :jTAf€ o o ? 11$ N15 \_eg:,; ,. :/ ALLOWING I'HE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS $ c.#N W-n-^< 4Iro\"r | 3444l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 367 OF 2021 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Co.Ltd, Branch Office at SSS Plaza, IVG Road, Warangal, Rep. by authorized person, Sagar Plaza, lvth Floor, Abids, Koti Road, Hyderabad ...Appe lla nt AND 1 Gugloth Saraiah, S/o. Chinna Dhasu, Age 26 years, Oc- Agriculture, 'R/o.H.No.4-19lA, Chandruthanda, Karlapalle Post, Govindraopet l\,4andal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District, presently residing at Nayeem Nagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. 2 K.Venkat Reddy, S/o. Buchi Reddy, Age fVajor, occ- Owner cum driverof the Crime Vehicle, Rl/o. Pasra Village, Govindraopet [/andal, Jayashankar Bhupalpally District. ...Respondents Appeal under Section 'l 73 of lr,4otor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.25212018, dated 21 .O1 .2021 , on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Vlll Additional District Judge (FTC) At Warangal. 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 Kondadi A.1ay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No. 1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil tvliscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed, reducing the Quantum of Compensation i.e., awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 37 ,69,2001- to '17,36,0001 setting aside the Order and Decree dt. 211O112021 in tr/VOP No. 252 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, lt4otor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum VlllAdditional District Judge (FTC), Warangal.

2. That the reduced compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the interest if ,rny for the period of delay be and hereby is frtrfeited. 4. That the responde nt Nos 'l & 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest with in a period of t,ryo months from the date of receipt cf a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any.

5. That on such deposit, the Appellant be and hereby is entitled lo withdraw the already deposited said amount without furnishing any security.

6. That save as aforr:said, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; an I

7. That there be no c rder as to costs in this appeal- /. MOHD.ISMAIL TY REGISTRAR S CTION OFFICER al Cum Vlll Add tional District //TRUE COPY// To, 1 2 The Chairman, N4otor Accident Claims Tribun Judge (FTC) at Warangal. Two CD Copies; w ABK HIGH COURT ETD,J DATED: 2510412025 DECREE MACMA.No.367 of 2021 ALLOWING THE, MACMA WITHOUT COSTS cocoA r{ X-,