The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s): SRI P GOPAL DAS Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.2: K.SRAVYA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I I I I THI' HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SRIID SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.615 of 201O JUDGMEI{T: This appcal is fik:d against the Order dared 28.O2.2OO9 in O.P.No.240 of 2OO6 passed by the learned Ch:rirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (lV-Additional District Judge (P.T.C)), Ranga Recld-v- District. '2. The petition uide O.P.No.24O of 2006 u.as filcd by one Allapuram Pentaiah, claiming compensation of I?s.3,OO,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 2O.1,2.2OO5. He examined himself as P.W. L and also got examined P.W.2 on his behalf and marked Exs.Al t.o A7 on their bchalf and trx.B1 was marked on behalf of the rcspondcnts. The trial Court after considering thc oral and documenrary evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs.91,000/- and also observed that appellant/ petitioner is liable for 5O76 contributory negligence and thus directed the respondents to palr' an amount of Rs.4S,OOO/ - @ 7.5o/o per annum from the datt: of filing thc petition till realization, to the appellant/ petitioner. Aggrieved by thc said award, petitioner therein preferred the present appeal, l seeking to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court.

3. The brief facts of thc case arc that on 2O. 12.2005, tirc appellant herein along u,ith others proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 28 B 86 to attend their work. When they reached near Muraharapally cross roads, the drivcr of the car bearing No.AP 29 T 7908, drove it in a rash and negligent manncr r.vith high speed and dashed their scooter. As a result, the petitioner sustained fractures and othcr injuries.

4. The learned Counsel for the appetlant/ petitioner mainly contended that rcspondents havc not led any eviclence with regard to contributory negligence and even the charge sheet does not contemplate the negligence on thc part of the scooterist, as such the trial Court ought to have granted the entire compensation of Rs.3,O0,000/-. The trial Court ought to have granted an amount of Rs.1,75,OOO/- towards permancnt disability, Rs.10,OO0/- lor cxtra nourishment and also requested to enhance the interest from 7.5o/o to 97o. Therefore, requested the Court to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court. ,

5. Perusal of the record shows that respondent No.2/insurance company in their counter have not taken the plca of contributory negligencc and moreover they have not examined anyone rcgarding that aspect. It is for lhe insurance Company to prove the contributory negligence. So merely because, thcre was collusion of two vehicles, it t:annot bc said that therc was contributory negligence on thc part of the appcllant/ pe titioner. The trial Court failed to appreciate the facts properly and held that appellant/ petitioner is also liable lor 5oo/o cr>ntributory negligcnce and the said fir-rding of the trial Court is s<:t aside.

6. Appellant/ petitioner was doing Carpentry work and carning Rs.S,OOO/- per month. fle got examined P.W.2-docLor, vvho treated him and also filed Ex.A4-wound certiflcate, EX.AS discharge summary, Ex.A6-Bunch of medical bills and Ex.A7- X - Ray fiim, to prove the injuries. As per Dxs.AS and A7, appellant/ petitioner sustained fracture of both l>ones of left lou,er leg, surgery was conducted and interlocking nailing was done. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/ petitioner, this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.20,OO0/-, for the injuries sustained by him. ,1

7. Appellant/petitioner was hospitalized and underwent surgery, as such he might have suffered pain and suffering and thus this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. t S,O00/- for loss of amenities, Rs. 10,00O/- for transportation, Rs.lO,OO0/- for exrra nourishment, Rs.5,O00/- lor attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards medical cxpcnses. Apart lrom that hc could not attend duties for at least 6 months, as such this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amoLlnt o[ Rs.3O,0O0/ - towards loss o[ incomc.

8. Therefore, the appellar-rt/ pclitioner is entitled for the compensation in thc lollorving terms: L 2 4 5. 6 7 8 lnjuries Loss of Income Pain and Sullering Loss of Amenitie s Extra NourishmenL TransporLation Attendant charges Medical Expenses TOTAL Rs.20,OO0/ Rs.30,OOO/ - Rs. i 5,OO0/ - Rs.15,OO0/- Rs.l O,OOO/ - Rs. 10,0O0/ - Rs.5,ooo/ - l l Rs 1o,ooo/ Rs. 1,15,OOO/- |

9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by cnhancing the compensation amount granted by the trial Cotirt from Rs.45,O00/ - to Rs. 1 , 15,00O/ - ([tupees One Lakh Fifteen 5 Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum lrom the date of liling the petition till the date of realization. 1'hough all the respondents are jointly and severally responsible to pay compcnsation, respondent No.2/ insurance Company is directcd to dcposit the entire amount within a period ol one month frc>m the date of receipt of a copy ol this Judgmcnt. On such deposit, appellant/ petitioner is perrnitted to q.ithdrau, the said amor.rnt along rvith the interest accrucd or-r it.'lhr:rc shall be no order as to costs. Misccll:rneous petitions pending, if ar-iy, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T, JAYASREF ^ r\ DFPUTY REGtsiRAR ./ \\N- CTION OFFICER To, 1' The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar cum rV Additionar District ^ Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 2. One CC to SRt p G6PAL DAS Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to K.SRAWA Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies BA / HIGH COURT PSSJ DATED:1910312025 1 irE SIa o (, 3 r 0[l ?u5 Z * * JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.615 of 2010 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED / //.3 ./4 y'o ./1{ I J l I ^ MO oF TELANGANA rN rHE HrGH """*l{B$JIf^:"tiJE wrougD$Yffi IlHli,',HI='-ir"?',,H*"n PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P'SREE SUDHA CELLANE OUS APP L MIS EAL NO :615 oF2010 TOR ACCI DENT clvl Between: 1 +h:fI-Y [}g i'fi l;r?i *!31?'33i''$ged 23 vears' occ CarPenter, "ilJ ...APPELLANT(SyPETITIoNER AND 1 2 R. MADHU, S/o. Thapsia, aged major, Occ: Business R/o 4-109' Yacharam' Ranga ReddY District. New lndia Assurance Company Limited" rep by its CZii 'i-z=iiC rvr"oin Hltohan'Building, R P Road' secunderabad' ^Divisional Manager' Legal ...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of ltlotor Vehicles against the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P. No. 240 of 2006 daled 2810212009, on the file of Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District. This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds or appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. P Gopal Das, Advocate for Appelllants and of Sri. K.Sravya Advocate for Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for Respondent No.1. --.----------..- -__------.---... This Court doth order and decree as follows: ]llt the compensation. . respondents are joinfly and sevr 1 ll"t the Motor Accid il-tti{,'#p,;;}rt#$:r#-uf,iiri,F}ffi jlll . s'v J!'rr r(ry ano severally responsible to pay i' That the respondent *::?rl1r::l:: company is directed to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month rr"r,itnJ l"t" o, receipt of a copy of this Judgment On such deposit, apperranvpeiii;;;;;" permitted to withdraw the , :?id. z+' r nar save as aforesaid the decree of the rower court sha, stands confirmed in 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. amount atong with the interest r;.;;;;;i all other respects; and ' //TRUE COPYII Sd/. T. JAYASREE IJTY REGISTRAR s TION OFFICER v To,

1. The Chaarman lr'lotor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum lV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District.

2. One CC to SRl. P GOPAL DAS Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to K.SRAVYA Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies BA HIGH COURT DATED:1910312025 DECREE MACMA.No.615 of 2010 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED / 4-.s' /q,//o,/15