High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri. S. Surender Reddy counsel for the Respondent No.3: sri K: Madhusudhan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT : THE HON'BLI SRI JuSTICE NARSING RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.4O3 2O2O JIIDGMENT: This M.A.C.M.A. is liled under Section t73 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by tJle appellant/claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 26.1L.2O19 passed in M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2018 by the Additional MACT-cum-Special Judge for Trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act- cum-V Additional District and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad, (for short, lthe Tribuna{ seeking compensation of Rs.2,0O,OO0/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 07.O2.2O17.

2. The brief fact of the case is that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.233 of 2018 under Section 166(1Xa) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Bolero Jeep bearing No.TS 20 T 0185. It is contended that on 07.02.2117, the petitioner and. others were chitchatting in front of the house of Jetti Shankaraiah, meantime one Bolero Jeep bearing No.TS 20 T 0185 being d.riven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at \ 2 lan, IACYAlfr..ng otzot O High Speed, dashed the petitioner and Jetti Shanker, due to which they received injuries. The petitioner sustained multiple fractures on sth, 6ttr and 7ul ribs towards right side and injuries on all over her body. Immediately she was taken to Government Hospital, Sirpur-T and after first aid., she was shifted to Forhrne Medcare Hospital, Karimnagar and she was admitted as inpatient where the doctors conducted several tests and examinations and she was discharged with an advice to take bed , rest and to follow up treatment and incurred an amount of Rs.50,ooo/- towards hospital and. medical expenses. Basing on the complaint, the Police, Kaghazrragar Rurat registered case in crime No.9 of 2Ol7 under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No.1 and on completion of investigation filed tlle charge sheet.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was hale and healthy and she was aged about 55 years and was earning Rs.10,OO0/- per month by doing labour work and due to the said accident, she was unable to do her day to day work and she could not move from bed due to permanent disability. Hence, ttre petitioner has been claiming Rs.2,O0,OOO /- towards compensation. I 3 rurn J YACUAT&..t OS qlzOi2O

4. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondents Nos.1 & 2 the driver and the owner of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The respondent No.3 - Universal Sompo General Insurance Company filed thetr counter- alfrd.avit, denying all the avennents made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took pkel age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further contended that the compensation claimed by tlle petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: "i) Whether the injuries catsed dtrc to rash and negligent driving of tle driuer of tle Bolerc Jeep beafug IVo.fS 2 T 0185?

2. Wletler the petitioner is enlitled for compersatiory if so, to utltal amount andftomulwm?

3. To uhatrelieJ?"

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both tJre parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.3srOOO/- along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum' -- \ ,4. r.F YACuA Itb.lK)A oj -;.. :il, :f. L :..

7. Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by tlle learned. Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on tlre following among other grounds that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider that tlle petitioner sustained grievous iniuries with fractures and that she has incurred. more thar,r Rs.2,oo,o oo / - rmd was in hospital as inpatient. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.2,Oo,ooo/ with interest and also the loss of earning, medical bifls and transportation charges. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted a reasonable amount toward.s pain and sufferance. The learned Tribunal has awarded. meager amount of Rs.S,OO0/- toward.s paiil and sufferance for simple injury.

08. Heard Srl S Surender Reddg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Srl K.Madlut"sudhan Reddy,learned counsel for the respondents. Perrrsed the material on record.

09. Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned rribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of t]le accident. The only point that arose before this court in this appeal is that: 5 ro4,., IACUA T$.tlO:' qf t dN i) Whetler the petitiono is enlilted for tle enhaned ampensatian" if so' to ulnt ertent? Potat t(o.1 10. Admittedly, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant having been unsatisfred with the compensation awarded by the learned' Tribunal i.e., Rs.35,OO0/'as against the claim of the appellant/claimant i.e., Rs.2,0O,OOO/-. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the nature of accident and the involvement of the said Bolero Jeep and there is also no dispute with the fact that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.3. It is also not in dispute that the said accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Bolero Jeep. The main grievance of the Petitioner is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that ttie petitioner sustained grievbus injuries i.e., fracture of sth, 6o! and 7tr' ribs and ought to have awarded just and fair compensation.

11. As seen from the record, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and sufferance for simple injury, this court is inclined to add an amount of Rs.4O,O0O/- to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and making it Rs.lS,OOO/-for each grievous injury that has caused, this Court is inclined to award the same' 6 ![w,J UACUA rft..tKrg ot,*)iN,

12. Admittedly, there are three fracture injuries, though the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in respect of there being no d.octor being examined. and the petitioner has not filed medical bills showing that tJle petitioner has incurred an amount of Rs.So,oOg/-, the learned Tribr-rnal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,OOO/- as against the claim of the petitioner i.e., Rs.5o,00o/-, this court is also of the opinion that the amount awarded. by the learned Tribunal is just and fair and needs no interference.

13. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and submissions made, by both sid.es, this Court is of the opinion that tl1e petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified ald recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Amount arrlved at by the Tdbural Amount arrfued at by thls Court Transportation Charges /attendant/ Elrtra nourishment Medical Bills Pain & sufferance Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.25.OOO/- Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.25.OOO/- Rs.45,fiX)/- Total Rs.35,OOO/- Rs.75,(XX)/- r 7 lnBJ UACUA h./UX, otl2CNrO L4. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.35,00 O /- to RS.7S,OOO/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only! with tlle interest of 7.5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. respondents are directed to deposit tl'e said amount together with costs ald interest after grving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, witJrin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any suret5r. There shall be no order as to \ to'r. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SDT. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ,,TRUE GOPY" ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER The chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- special Judge for Trial of cases under scs/sTs (POA) Act-cum-V Additional District and sessions Judge, at Adilabad' (With re@rds' if any)

2. One'CC to Sri. S' Surender Reddy' Advocate IOPUCI 3. one cc to sri K. Madhusudhan Reddy, Advocate toPucl 4. Two CD CoPies KH/gh HIGH COURT DATED:01lO8l2O25 f I / , JUDGMENT+DECREE [ 2 DRAFTS I MACMA.No.4O3 ot 2O2O t THE S (c ? 3 0t[ iiit () :t * PARLW ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS q\fit{ [ 3443 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND rWCruW rIVC . rHE HoNouRABLE r*, rfrTfl?=ilI*rrNc RAo NANDIKoNDA Between: 0rn'll,i{Erill'fl 4irT1H',*ffi ,'"','i:,1,8b3?,?fl :1?13:,lTix#:i Komurambheem District, preseinry' resiaild;i' i"rnn"gar, Adirabad,- Adirabad District. - ----'l ' AND ...AppellanUpetitioner

1. Arla Srikanth and 2 Others, Slo FraOmakar, A(]e 2l years crime vehicre Borero jego bearing No. ts-io-i-o]'ad, cio Ka g haznaga r Ma nda r, Kdmu ram dneem, AJir"o"i' district. Occ. Driver of Bhattupalli village, '';i&ii,T:te:,q-;[x*F[1fl Komurambheem Asifabad Districi. 3iluffil.:,:p.l,lrifl+il:iisic?iE:r^Uirffi "BTi,3H:#;S'*?,,fr ltt?,l.reroJeep 1,ffi?'a",:::'frtJc,[i,,i Mumbai.(MS) (Policy lto.zsislsoogigG/ooiridol riiid from 31-10-2016 to 30- ...Respondents/ Respondents Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor vehicles Act,lggg against{he order and decree in M-V.O.P.No. 233 of 2018 dated. 12-12-201g on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Specirr Jrig" for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-VAdditional Districtano sissions Judge, at Adilabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeat, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower-court and itre mat6rial pipers in the case and upon hearlng !!re arguments of Sri.' S. Surender Reddy, Aoro."t" for the Appellant and of sri K.' Madhusudhan Reddy,'Advocate ror flre Rkp*J*t No.3 and none appeared for the respondent No.l & 2. "vyrv"yv' r_l This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal is enhanced from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand Only) with the interest of 7.5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition tillthe date of realization;

3. That the respondents be and hereby directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit that the petitioner be and hereby permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirnied in all other. respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,/TRUE COPY" SD/. T. SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR -? (9 SECTIoN OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and Sessions To, Judge, at Adilabad. (Wth records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies KH/gh HIGH COURT DATED:O1l0gtz02is I I DECREE MACMA.No.403 ot 2A2O PARLTY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. q l1a