High Court · 2025

age, avocation of the appellant - petitioner. Further it is contended that the d::iver and insurer of motor cycle are proper and necessary parties to the O.P., the respondent No.l has violated the policy conditionr; and prayed to dismiss the petition.

6. Learned Tribunal has framed the following issues: t. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the Vehicle bearing No.AP2S-U-1176 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so to what just amount and against whom?

3. To what relieP

7. Appellant - petitioner is examined as PWl and also examined PW2 - Dr.N.Sunl)rih. and got marked Exs.Al to A4. Respondents have not led any evidence in support of their contentions.

8. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence adduced by the parties has partlyallowed the O.P., awarded Rs.31,3OO/- 9s / 4le BRMR, J MACMA.No.3588 of 2OO8 compensation payable by respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. g. Learned counsel for the appellant - petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has not considered the grievous injuries suffered by the appellant and failed to note the amount incurred by him towards his treatment. Further the Tribunal ought to have granted compensation towards future treatment and also erred in taking Rs.SO/- per d.ay as the income of the appellant - petitioner without considering the evid.ence on record. Counsel to substantiate his contentions has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limitedt, (ii) V-Mekala Vs' M'Malathi and another2, (iii) Shaik Masood Vs. Syed Arif and another3 and (iv)Md.Raheem Vs. L.Bhoom Rao and anothera'

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and rightly awarded the compensation, no interference js called for and prayed to dismiss the apPeal. */ '(zorr) 13 scc 236 '(zot+) 11 scc 178 ' MACMA.No.1689 of 2010, dated 08.t1.2O24, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad MACMA.No.1709 of 2010, dated 08.71.2024, High Court for the State of Telangana at o Hyderabad BRMR, J MACMA.No.3588 of 2OO8 I 1. Learrred counsel for the appellant - petitioner has filed calculation memo

12. Hearl learned counsel on record and perused the material

13. Now the points for consideration are (i) Whether the appellant - petitioner is entitled for just compensation, if so? (ii) Whether the award passed by the learned Tribunal in O.P.No.268 of 2OO5, dated 05.02.2008 suffers from any perversity or illegality, if So, does it require interflerence of this Court? L4. Learnecl counsel for the appellant - petitioner has challenged the quant.rm in the appeal.

15. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.Nc Name of the head 1 2 3 4 5 Loss of income for two months One grievous injury Three simple injuries Medicine Extra nourishrnent Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs.4,8O0/- Rs.80/- per day Rs.15,O00/- Rs.6,OO0/- Rs.2,OOO/- for each simple iniury Rs.4,000/- Rs.1,5OO/- 31,3O0/-

16. The evidence of the appellant - petitioner is that he is a stone cutter an&labourer on contract basis and was earning Rs.12,ooo/- 1 / 6/e BRMR, J MACMA.No.3588 of 2008 per month, the learned Tribunal has arrived that the appellant - petitioner has not filed any document to show his income and thereby considered him as daily wage labourer and fixed an amount of Rs.8O/- per day.

17.l In Ramachandrappal the Supreme Court has observed that the appellant therein who was working as a Coolie and was earning Rs.4,5OO/- per month at the time of accident but the Tribunal has reduced it to Rs.3,00o/- on the assumption that the wages of a labourer during the relevant period viz., in the year 2OO4 was Rs.iOQ/- per day. Further it is held that there was no reason for the Tribunal to have reduced the claim of the claimant and determined the monthly earning to be a sum of 'Rs.3,OO0/- per month. L7.2 In the above said decision insurance company has not contested the matter thereby the Supreme Court has taken the earning of the coolie at Rs.4,SOOl- per month. Coming to the case on hand, Insurance Company has contested the matter before the Tribunal, hence the aforesaid decision is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

18.1 Since the appellant petitioner is a stone cutter and labourer on contract basis, this Court fixes the income of the ,/ 719 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3588 of 2O08 appellant - petitioner at Rs.4,oo0/- per month which will meet the ends of jusrice. r8.2 The learned Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the appellant - petiti.ner could not do any work fo1 a period of two months for arrivirrg the loss of ihcome, this court is also accepts the same.

19. In V.Mekala' the Supreme court has awarded litigation expenses, hence the appelLant - petitioner is also entitled for litigation e)(penses.

20. In Shaik Masood3 this court has awarded an amount of Rs.5O,OO07 - tou,ards one grievous injury and Rs.2E,OO0i _ for simple injury. 2l- " In Md.Raheemo this court has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards one grievous injury.

22. The appelrant petitioner is entitred for an amount of Rs.25,ooo i- for grievous injury and Rs.1s,0oo/- towards simpry injury. 23- The [earned Tribunar has not awarded any amount towards pain and suffering, hence the appellant - petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,ooo/- towards pain and suffering I i i i I I I I I I 8/e BRMR, J 'tvtacna. No.ssas or zoog

24. PW2, who issued Ex.A3-wound certificate deposed that the appellant - petitioner has sustained one grievous injury i.e., Supra malleola region of right tibia and three simple injuries viz., bruises over the chest right side, fore head and right hand. Hence this Court is of the considered view that the appellant - petitioner has received one grievous injury and three simple injuries.

25. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl. No Name of the head 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7 Loss of income for two months (Rs.4,OOO/- per montJr) One grievous iniury Three simple injuries (Rs.15,OO0/- to each injury) Medical expenses Transportation Litigation expenses Pain and suffering and extra nourishment Total Compensation awarded by this Court Rs.8,000/- (a,0OO x 2) Rs.25,000/- Rs.45,000/- (l5,OOO x 3) Rs.4,O00/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.2O,000/- Rs. 1,22,0OO I -

26. The learned Tribunal has awarded interest at the rate of

7.5% per annum, which has to be enhanced to 9o/o as per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and otherss. Hence points are ariswered accordingly.

27. In the result, MACMA.No.3588 of 2OO8 is partly allowed and the crynpensation awarded by the Tribunal is eryhanced as under: t zoz2 scc online sc 1683 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3588 of 2OO8 a) The impugned award dated O5.O2.2O08, passed in O.P. No.268 of 2005, stands modified. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.3 1 ,3OO/ - is enhanced to Rs. 1,22,OOO / _ together with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to dep,lsi1 the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any wittrin a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copF of this judgment. d) Apprellant - petitioner is permitted to withdraw his ent:re amount with costs and interest thereon without - furnishing security. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad.

2. One CC to Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CO to SRI N.J.Sunil Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies w Svs/SA HIGH COI'RT DATED i1i'11212025 , g1 AT o() 1\1$ \ t Lt I * * JUDGMENT + DEGREE MAGMA.No.3588 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA -eG X-& [ 3448 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3588 OF 2008 Between: Devendla R/o Nallur [V], Balkonda [M], Nizamabad District Ravi, S/o.Pullaiah Stone Cutter and Labour on Contract Basis AND 1 $ri Mohd Kaleemuddin S/o.Mohd Kaleeuddin, Aged Major Owner of Jeep $earing No.AP 25 U 1176 R/o.H.No.1-60, Khajipura [V], Balakonda Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. tlnited lndia lnsurance Company Ltd, rep by its Branch Manager O/o.Branch Office Tammi Complex, Ambedkar Chok, ARmoor [V] and [M], Nizamabad District. ..,Appellant ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and dedree in O.P.No.268 of 2005, dated 05.02.2008 on the file of the Motor Accideni Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court) Nizamabad. \ - This Appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, fhe judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the casp and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, Advocats for Appellant and of Sri N.J.Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Respondents. l This Cotfrt doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly- allowed

2. fnlt the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: 3. That the impugned award dated 05.02.2008, passed in O.P.No.268 of 2005, stands modified.

4. Thpt the compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.31,300/- be and he{eby is enhanced to Rs.1 ,22,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% pefi annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. :.

5. That the respondent Nos.1 and 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of tltis judgment.

6. That the Appellant - petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw his entire anrount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

7. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRARe SECTION OFFICER /TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge), (Fast Track Court) ltlizamabad. 2. Two CD Copies SvsiSA YY HIGH GOI.'RT DATED i1 tt 11212025 DECREE MACMA.No.3588 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA l-l "uY(/' ,ffmr