Bathula Vijay Kumar v. 1. Kontu Thirupathi

Gounsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI KOTA SUBHA RAO The Court delivered the following: Judgment n IN HE HIGH COURT F.OR THE STATE OT'TELANGANA AT IIYDERABAD THT} HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A.No.597 OF 2o.24 DATE: l\-'.L2.2o.25 ) Between: Bathula Vtjay Kumar ...Appellant AND Kontu Thirupathi and others JUDGMENT: ...Respondents Heerd Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

2. Thi:; appeal arises out of the order dated 14.L1.2O23 passed b;r learned Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar 1n M.V.O.P.lrlo.19 of 2O2l in allowing the claim granting compenszrtion of Rs.9,O3,OOOl -, along with proportionate costs and interests @ 7 .5o/o per annum

3. The facts leading to file the present appeal are that on 2O.O9.2O?.O, the appellant was proceeding from Rekurthi Village tc, Chinthakunta Village on a two wheeler bearing 2 No.AP-15-AT-7077. when he reached Vikalangula Hostel at Rekurthi village, one Tata Ace Trolley bearing No.TS-02-uc- 5923 carne from back side and hit the appellant,s vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As a result, the appellant fell down and received multiple injuries i.e., Supracondylar fracture shaft of left femur. Basing on the complaint, crime No.173 of 2o2o was registered under section 337 Ipc before the Kothapalli Police Station. Therefore, the appellant who is the claimant, filed a claim before the learned rribunal claiming Rs.8,00,0oo / - towards compensation under various heads.

4. Respondent Nos.l and 2 set ex parte. However respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the averments stating that as per Section 15g (6) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988, which states that it is mandatory duty of the concerned police station to forward the d.ocuments to the respondents from the date of information, but it is not complied with. on the other hand, the compensation claimed by the appellant is also excessive.

5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following . points were framed for enquiry: / / I I .) 3 1) Wrcth.er tfLe accident occurred due to rash and neglig,znt driuirug of tlrc uehicle by Rl as alleged by the petitioruer? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation as praAed for and i,f so, at wlmt rate arud from utLrcm? 3) To whnt retieJ?

6. On behalf of the appellant/claimant, PWs- | to 7 were examined and Exs.Al to A26 were marked. On behalf of the respondetrts, none were examined but Ex.B I which is a policy war; marked.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal t:rred in not considering the disability at 55% for the injuries sustained, which is evident from the deposition of PW.7-Doctor who treated the appellant under Ex.A.26. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal lailed to apply multiplier method in order to grant just coml)ensation. Learned counsel also submits that the Tribunal lailed to consider the future prospects in this case as the injured sustained 55% physical disability amounting to 1OO% lr>ss of earning capacity and 4Ooh of future prospects t 4 in order to grant reasonable compensation towards the loss of earnrngs.

8. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme court in the case of Mona Bhager qnd. others us sajian singh & Yadau & othersr stating that though the original claim was lodged for lesser amount, the appeal can be allowed enhancing the compensation. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that though the appellant claimed Rs.g,oO,Oool- in the claim petition, the rearned rribunal granted Rs.9,o3,0oo/-, which is just and reasonable and does not. seek any indulgence of this court for enhancement. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Mona Bhagel (Supra) is not applicable to the present case. 10. The Tribunal taking into account the material available on record and on examining the witnesses and the documents showing that the appellant suffered disabilit5r, granted compensation of Rs.9,03,ooo/- under various heads t 2OO2 Live Law (SC) p-734 i I a 5 along wi:h proportionate costs and interest at 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit 1 1. The Tribunal has taken various aspects into account and the medical bills under which the appellant took treatmenl. etc., but, however, on perusal of the record, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has not taken any multiplier to calculate the income of the appellant. Apart from that, the learned Tribunal has also not considered Ex.A26 which is a disability certificate in a proper perspective, under which the claimant is entitled for calculation of disability at 55o/o. Furtherm')re, the claimant is also entitled for 4Ooh towards future prr>spects. It is also made clear that an amount of Rs.1,O0,OOO/- under the head pain and suffering mentioned in paragraph No.3O in M.V.O.P.No.19 of 2021 has to be deducted !o Rs. 5O,OO0/-.

12. In that view of the matter, to meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to partly allow the appeal, the claimant is entitled for the following compensation under the following treads Age of the injured :37 years Monl.hly income :Rs.12,OOO l- per month i.e. Rs. L,44,OOO / - per annum \ 6 ,r) Disability : 55% (As per Ex.A.26) On adding 4Ooh towards future prospects, the amount is Rs.2,O L,600 I -. 55% of Rs.2,O 1,600= 1, 10,880/- Applying multiplier to 1 , 10,880 x 15: 16,63,2OO / - Pain and suffering: Rs. 50,000/- For Future Surgery: Rs. 50,OOO/- The compensation awarded under all other heads remains the same. Medical expenses: Rs. 6,22 ,88O / - Loss of 6 month income: Rs. 72,OOOl- Attendant Charges: Rs. 20,OOO /- " Transportation Charges: Rs. 15,000/- Extra Nourishment: Rs. 10,000/- Total: 25,03,08O/-

13. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed, enhancing compensation from Rs.9,O3,OOO l- 25,03,080/-. The enhanced compensation shall c{ry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of to Rs. realization. No costs. f ( 7

14. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed To, SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER I /TRUE COPY/ Judge, l(arimnagar(With L"99r9:' if any)

1. The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District 2. on" cc to SRt A v k s PRASAD, Advocate [oP]JCl 3. One CC to SRI KOTA SUBHA RAO, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD OoPies K d Y_i\r .,qii.ni.I..: i:,:- :j. i ,. 'i^' '-.+ :'* z ]B / t HIGH COURT DATED i1211212025 o(J t .2 1 A flAt 20?6 .'3:r..' t. JUDGMEITIT+DECREE MACMA.}{o.597 of 2024 PARTLY I\LLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT GOSTS \ [ 3487 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Between: Bathula Vijay Kumar, S/o. Bathula Narsaiah, 4gg.^3^7^.IeaIS, occ. contract works i" NFOC1, k"r""rriaga, io*n, R/o. H.No,. Z-O-ZSZ[2, Subashnagar locality of Kareemnagar Town and District. ...ApPellant AND

1. Kontu Thirupathi, S/o. Narsaiah, A99, 24 y-e1LS'999- Driver of Tata Ace il;;g No.TS-oz--UC-SgZg, nyb. Ft.Uo. {O-OZ-SS1/1, Vidyanagar localitv of Karimnagar Town and District.

2. Badi Murali, s/o. Palaiah, Age. Major correctly nglklovvl-to-1!"^ petitioner, Oi.rp"tion. owneroitn. fita Acd bearing ryb. .TS-02-UC-5923, lO:t-li}il, ffai f.fo. 203, Adarsha Apartments, Vidyanagar locality of Karimnagar Town and District. R/o. H.No.

3. Tata AIG General lnsurance Company Ltd.,-Rep- by its Branch Manager, ff .tfo. g-1-62, 68, 69; 70i,71,72 aha Quot. City-Center and Quot. Shop No'7, 71A,, 1st Flooi, Siwaian Street, Karimnagar - 505 001, Telangana. ...ResPondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and deciee in M.V.o.p.No.19 ol 2o21dated. 14t11t2023 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgmeni'and Decre6 of the LoweiCourt and the material papers in the Case anA up6n hearing the arguments of SRI A V K S PRASAD, Advocate for the Appefflnt and of $ru fOfA SUBHA RAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That ttre Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowe<!, enhancing compensation from Rs.9,03,000/- to Rs. 25,03,080/-; 2. That the enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7 -5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That strve as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That th,:re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chilirman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional District Judge, l(arimnagar

2. Two CD Sopies ADK El. € , t HIGH COURT DATEDi12l1il2025 DECREE MACMA.No.S97 of 2024 PARTLY I\LLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT'COSTS