The High Court · 2025

3. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR secrr6klrrrcen t. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies To, t;.!i, ':;, HIGH COURT DATED:21 10312025 ..a'-- --- .l'--. , ii i. S 6, {;ll 15 sEP 206 .. .,'.. tJcr- . \:.:-.- - r"1 DECREE MACMA.N o.434 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS l8p lw 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF IMARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MTSCEL LANEOUS APP EALNO:434OF2021 Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the order anddecieeinM.V.O.P.No.2627OF 20'13dated. 1311012020 onthefileof theCourt of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional chief Judge' City Civil Court, HYderabad. Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Represented by its Manager( Legal) Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, HYderabad ...APPELLANT/ResPondent No 2 AND 1 2 E.Ramesh, S/o E.lvlallaiah ( Late) Age. 32 years, Occ Security Guard' Fi"runirv Nii, Ryo Stinirasa'Colony,khairatabad, Hyderabad' P.Armugam, S/o Ponnu Swamy, Age. Major,Occ' Business, R/o 2-1-1 1', HMT Hills, Eli-amma Bonda, Ranga Reddy District. ...Respondent No 2/Respondent No 1 Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following : Judgment ---7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. NO.434 oF 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is Iiled by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 13. !O.2O2O in M.V.O.p.N o.2622 of 20 13 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short .,the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they u'ere arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on 15.06.2013 at about t:2O p.m., the petitioner and his friend were going on his motor cycle bearing No.Ap-15_AD_ 926g fromJagadgiri Gutta, Kuka Lpallv to Hi_tech City to attend his dut5r at United Health Group Office and when they reached Remedy Hospital, one lorry Tipper bearing No.Ap_1O_U_5664 carne at high speed in rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner,s motor bike from behind. As a result of which the petitioner and his friend fell down and sustained multiple fractures and injuries. Immediately, he rvas shifted to ESI Hospital for treatment. It is his case that he incurred huge expenditure towards medical treatment and that he sustained disability due ro the accident and that he lost his job. ,/ 2 MACMA No-434 2021 \! -

4. The respondent No. I remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2/Insurance Company hled counter afhdavit denying the petition averments and further contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor bike and that there was no negligence of the lorry driver. It is further contended that the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving license as on the date of accident and that their company is not liable to pay arry compensation. It further denied the age and income of the injured-petitioner.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 2 WhetLer tle accident took place due to the rash an negligent diuing of the lorry tipper beaing No.AP' 1O-U-5664 causing injuries to tLe petitioner? Wttetler the petitioner is entitled fo, compensation? If so, to tuhat extent and from whom? To what relief ?

3. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs I to 3 7 . and got marked Exs.Al to A9. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced except that Ex.Bl was marked with consent.

8. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,26,5281-. Aggrieved by the said \- .t-. 3 ETD, MACMA No.434_202i f i Order and Decree dated t3.]O.2O2O, the Insurance Company. the present appeai is filed by 9 Heard sri A' Ramakrishna Reddy, leamed counsel for the appeilants. Inspite of service of notice, there is no representation on behalf of the respondents.

10. The learned appellants counsel argued that the accident occurred due to the rash and negiigence of the petitioner and that there was no rash and negligence on part of the tipper driver. He further submitted that the Tribunal has grol erred in granting compensadon and that it fa,ed ,o ,oo.".rrt"', Lte the fact that the petitioner took treatment in ESi Hospital and that the said Doctor has assessed the physical disability as 72o/oand that the Tribunal has wrongly assessed the disability as 5OZo ar argued that though Pw4 has not treated the petitioner, his evid ence was simply believed by the Tribunal in considering the Disability Certificate. The Tribunal has not believed the Salary Certificate produced by the petitioner, but still has considered his income as revealed by the said certificates and therefore, the Tribunal has totally arrived at an erroneous amount and therefore, prayed to set aside the award passed by the Tri bunal. I 4 EID,J MACMA No.434 2021

11. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the foilowing points for determination:_

1. Whether th,e qccident occurred due to the rash and negligent diutng of *"* '''wgence of the driuer of the pettioner ond nor due to m" ,"ri'i",i7lili. lorry tipper beaing No.Ap- 1o-tl-s6;;;'

2. Wrctlrcr the tibundl Ins granted excess amount of compensation? 3. WBther tlle Order interference? qnd Decree passed bg the Tribunal need ang

4. To tahat relieJ?

72. Point No.1: a) A perusal of Exs.Al and A2/FIR and Charge sheet reveal that the driver of lorry Tipper is the accused and that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and the petitioner who was riding the motor bike sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. It further reveals that the tipper lorry has hit the motor bike from behind and caused the accident. Though the Insurance Company has raised a dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, no rebuttal evidence is adduced in this regard. Therefore, based on the crime record and the evidence of pW1/ the injured petitioner, it is held that the accident occurred due tcr the rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the tipper Lorry, but not due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. 5

13. poin No.2: t 5 ETD,J MACMA No.434 2d21 b) The petitioner has asserted that he is aged about 32 years and was working in United Health Group and that he was earning Rs.8,500/- per month as Security Guard. c) To prove his earnings, the petitioner has relied upon Exs.Xl and X2. A perusal of the said exhibits reveal that Ex.X1 is the Authorization Letter authorizing pW3 to give evidence on behalf of the United Health Group Company and Ex.X2 is the Employrnent Card of the pedtioner d) It is elicited in the evidence of pW3 that Ex.X2 does not bear his signature. A perusal of Ex.X2 reveals that the petitioner is not a permanent employee of United Health Group, but he happens to have worked under G4s Securily Solutions, who is under contract with United Health Group. Ex.X2 bears the signature of the contractor with seal. However, the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the same and has heid th at it does not aurhorize pW3 to depose, but infact it authorized G. Raju/PW3 to represent on behalf of G4s Secure Solutions for the referred case on 16.72.2019, and his deposition is recorded on 16.12.2Olg Since the witness is examined and he deposed about Xl and X2, the salary as discrosed from X2 can be taken into consideration and it can be safeiy held i I i .J 6 ETD,J MACMA No.434 2021 i that PW3 used to earn Rs.8,79 O I- per month as sa1ary' With regard to the injuries suffered by him and the time taken to heal' it is the injury t'o 2"a, 3'd and 4rh meta torsais of left foot and the entire record discloses that he has never undergone any inpatient treatment. All the prescriptions disclose that he underwent only outpatient treatment. Though he complained about pain and suffering as revealed from the prescriptions under Ex'A6, the said prescriptions disclose that a gel and tablets were prescribed to the petitioner. Thus, on an overall perusal of the evidence on record' it is held that the pctitioner must have underwent pain and suffering and could have been out of work for about 2 to 3 months' Thus' taking the loss of earnings for a perlod of 3 months it would be Rs.8,O79 x3=24,237 l-. Ex.A3 is the certihed copy of ttre accident register and ExA4 e) is the outpatient ticket of ESI Hospital' ExAS and A6 are prescriptions issued by Rahul Hospital and Basant Sahney Hospital. A perusal of Ex.A3 reveais that the petitioner sustained injuries in Road Trafhc Accident and that he suffered fracture of left foot (metatarsals). Ex.A4 / the outpatient ticket of ESI Hospital and prescriptions under Ex.AS and A6 show that the petitioner approached the said hospitals for better treatment and was advised with medication. 7 ETD,J MACMA No.434 2021 f) Ex.AS is a set of prescriptions by Dr. D Venu Madhav of Rahul Hospitals. Ex.A6 is a set of prescriptions issued by Basant Sahney Hospitals on 18.O6.2015,27.t2.2Ot6 and 2S.O5.2019. It is revealed that he was recommended with a soft footwear, and that he suffered fractures o[ 2nd, 3rd and 4ft meta torsals of left loot and that he was treated with ORIF_K Wire. The prescription dated 25.O5.2O19 discloses that the patient complained of stiffness of left foot. Ex.A7 is the Disabilit5r Certificate issued by Dr. V.K.V prasad, examined as pw2 a''d he happens to be the doctor who treated him at Basant Sahney Hospital. The Insurance Company disputed the disability certificate stating that it is not issued by the medical board. A perusal of Ex.A7 reveals that the petrtioner sustained 12% of disability. pW2 further assessed the loss of earning capacify to be 5O%o. It is to be noted herein that the petitioner used to work as a Securit5z Guard in United Health Group Company and the injury suffered by him is the fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4fi meta torsals of left foot. The extent of disability assessed by the Doctor /PW2 is l2Vo, while he assessed the loss of earning capacit5r to be 507o In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumarl, the Apex Court has d observed that the percentage of disab ity will be assessed bv a Doctor and the Doctor can also speak about the disability in 'zol t (to scc ;.t3 -"-'l -.j 8 ETD,J MACMA No.434 2021 relation to the whole body, but the loss of earning capacity needs to be assessed by the Tribunal. In the present case, the Doctor himself has assessed the loss of earning capacigr and the same is taken into considera[ion by the Tribunai. If the said disability of 12o/o to left fooot is taken in relation to his whole body, it would be scaled down to less than 1O7o which may be around 5%o in the normal course, because it is the fracture in meta torsals of left foot ald the peLitioner does not complain about any other grievous injury. The said disability does not affect in any way with regard to his duties as a Security Guard. Therefore, the loss of earning capacit5r cannot be assessed as 50%o by any stretch of imagination. Some amount of guess work is involved in assessing the loss of earning capacity, but this Court cannot arrive at any reasonable hypothesis to assume the loss of earning capacity to be 5O7o when the person is assessed to have suffered 12% disability due to the fracture of meta torsals of left foot. It is pertinent to mention in this regard that the h) prescriptions of Dr. V.K.V Prasad ot 29.12.2016, 18.09.2019 ard

25.05.20 19 indicate that the petitioner was advised to use gel for external application and was prescribed with Zycel Tablets on ai1 the three occasions. On 18.09.2O19 he has only prescribed the gel for external application, which goes to show that the petitioner has .l 9 ETD,] MACMA No.434 2021 not suffered any acute pain or arly other discomfort to project such a disability and in no way, the said disabiliry of t2ok ro the left limb (due to fracture of meta torsals) can be upgraded to S0% loss in the earning capacity. Therefore, it is held that the Tribunal was wrong in assessing the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner. i) The said disability of l2%o to left limb is scaled down as 5%o to whole body, and if the same is taken to be the percentage of functional disability, then the loss of earning capacity would be sYo j) The age of the petitioner as mentioned in the disability certificate is '36' years as on 25.O5.2019. lo. SoLrllr Verrna Vs. Delhi ?}ansport Corporation2 t}.:re multiplier that has to be applied for his age is ,15,. Therefore, applying the said multiplier the compensation for loss of future earnings would be 96,94g x 15 x 5/1fi) =727lll-. Thus, in view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar (supra lf , the amount awarded for loss of earning capacity is Rs.8,O79 x 12= 96,948 x 15 x Sl IOO =Z2,Ztl-l _. k) The petitioner has suffered fracture injury to meta torsals of left foot which would cause him much pain and suffering. Hence, in view of the same, Rs.5O,0O0/- is awarded towards pain and ' :ooe 1oy scc rzr 10 ETD,J MACMA No.434 2021 suffering. The petitioner has filed medical bills under Ex'AS to an extent of Rs. 10,128/-. In addition to it some amount of expenditure towards transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses cannot be ruled out' Hence' Rs'1O'128/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs 25,0OO/- towards incidental expenses is awarded which comes up to Rs 35' 128/- under this head. I) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts Name of the heads Awarded by this Court Rs. SI.N o 1 2 i -ompensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Compensation under the heads hospital, medical transPort, extra nourishment and other incidental . - g-rPgnsei

2. Compensation for loss oI earnings (pasl i three months (8,079x3) lrss of future earnings due to dtsabitity s0,o0o/- 3s,r28l- 24237 I iz7r1j 4,,.i E;gtr.-.lr"a.19r1 Total !,a2p76J: , m) Thus, this Court arrived at a compensation of Rs l'82'76 to the petitioner, while the Tribunal has granted Rs'8'26'528/-' The difference in claim of compensation arose just because the loss of earnings is taken by the Tribunai as 5O7o as it was deposed by PW2. It is already discussed in 'paragraph No'h' supra' i'e' ' the made an error in arriving at the loss of earning Tribunal has \ 71 ETO,I MACMA No.434 2021 capacity. It is a glaring error and without any evidence on record, the Tribunal has taken 5O7o of loss of earnings, as given by PW2 in Ex.A7. PW2 failed to explain how he arrived aL 5Oo/o loss in earning capacit5r when the petitioner has sustained oriy l2oh of disabitity to left limb. In the absence of any basis for the assessment made by PW2, the Tribuna-l ought not have taken the same towards loss of earnings capacity. n) Now the question is whether this Court can reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal: In Ranjan Prakash and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager and Others3, the Apex Court had held as under:- "Where qn appeal is filed chattenging the quantum of compeftsation, irrespedilte of ulw files the appeat, the oppropriote course for the High Court is to examine the facts qn{l bg oppLging the releuant pinciples, determine tlrc lust compensation. If the compensation determined bg it ts higher than the compensation a uarded bg the Tibunal, ttrc High Coud uill allow the appeal, if it is bg the claimants qnd dismiss the appeaL if il is bg the ouner/ inxtrer. Similarlg, if the compensotion determined by thc High Court is lesser than the compensatioa otuarded bg the Tribund, . the High Court will dismiss ang appeal bg the claimants for enhancement, but alloru ong appeal bg ouner/insurer for reduction. The Htgh Cowt cannot obuiotlslg increase the cotlpensation in an appeal bg owner/insurer for reductng the compensotion, nor can it reduce the conry,ensation in an oppeol bg the claimonts seekrng enhoncement of compensation- " ln Shart:,nannrira and Ors. Vs. M.D., Divlsional Cefltre, o) Nekrtea, the Apex Court held that the hnding of fact recorded by the Tribunal should not be interfered with in an appeal unless and '(2ott) r4 s( c 639 ' 1zor:y rrsccsru I )t ETD,I MACMA No.434-2021 L) until, it is proved that glaring discrepancy or mistake has taken place. In the present case, there is glaring discrepancy with regard to the assessment of compensation under loss of earnings' the said discrepancy occurred as the Tribunal misconstrued the loss of earning capacity to be 507o, though' there was no such an impact on the eaming capacity of the individual- p) Hence, in the light of the above cited decisions of the Apex Court and in view of the discussion held supra' this Court opines that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excess and thus needs to be set aside' However' it is borne out by record that while admitting the appeal, the Insurance Company was directed to pay 5o%ofthedecreetalamountandthepetitionerswerepermittedto withdrawanamountofRs.3,OO,0oo/-.Therefore,thisCourtisof the opinion that if the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is reduced to the said extent of Rs 3'0O'OOO/- that would meet the ends of justice' In case if this Court goes by the technical approach, then the amount withdrawn by the claimants have to be recovered which is not proper in view of the benehcial nature of legislation. Thus, tilting towards the beneficial nature ol the M'V Act, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to that of Rs.3,00,o0o/ -' Hence, Point No'2 is answered accordingly' ) ' -o- ' 1+ por NTN o.3: 13 EID,] MACMA No.434_2021 In view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 and 2, the order and Decree ctated 13.1O.202O , passed by the Tribunal is set aside. point No.3 is answered accordingly. r5. POIN TN

9.4: In the result, the MACMA is ailowed by setting aside the Order and Decree dated 13.1O.2 O2O in M.V.O.p.No.2 622 of 2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cum_Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad reducing the compensation from Rs.6,00,O00/_ to Rs.3,00,OOO/_. The excess amount if any already deposited by the Insurance Company, shall be withdrawn by it. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII ,.8?'#3E'3,!'JHl'* .r- ${- SECTION OFFICER 'l The chairman' Motor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- , Additionar Chief Judqe, citv civit C;rri Hy;;;"'o"jfriJ^v Lower court Record) To, l

2. One CC to SRt. A RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Advocate [OpUC] 3 Two CD Copies I I HIGH COURT DATED:21 t}3t2}2s .,f- ,r' .-'.r. ' ''_ " 'it i-^ r :' 15 SEP 2U5 J. or-: ,,!,C f )1 .i JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.434 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 3o Itlet 4