Hearcl Sri v. Achuta Ram, learnecl

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI' V ATCHUTA RAM Counsel for the Respondent No'2: SRI' C BUCHI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos'3 & 4: SRI R'ANURAG (SC FOR APSRTC) The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT . -. -ii:.r.-it.:lt*&r lli {-}- ' t: \( THE HON'BLE SRT JUSTICE J. SREENTVAS RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2OO2 of 2Ol4 JTIDGMENT: This:rppr:a1 is filed by the claimant aggrir:..,ecl bv the order and decree dat,:d 1zl.1l.20Og in O.p. No.lg27 of 2OO(t,rn the file of the XI AC.citional Chief Judge (FTC), Hyderabaci seeking enhalcement o I compensation.

2. Hearcl Sri V. Achuta Ram, learnecl ,:r)LlDSej 1br the appellant, Sri Il. Anurag, learned Standing Corrnsel rLppearing on behalf ol rertpondent Nos.3 and 4 and Sri rl. Br-rcjri Reddy, learrred counsel appearing on behalf of responclcnr 1,,jo.2. ln spite ol serr.icr: of notice, respondent No. I not choseD to enter appearancte

3. Brief facts of case: On 26.02.2.006 the appellant aiong with ILis sor-r ancl one Sri A. Sekhar Reddv was travelling in a Maruti Car ro In-Jerpur Viilage from Hr,,jerabad and at about 12:00 noon u,hen thev reached Injapur village, the driver of the offending br rs hired with APSRTC t,earing No. Ap.24.U.lOOg carrrt: rn opposite 2 direction in a rash and negligent manner and while trying rto overtake another bus. lost control and dashed the car by coming in wrong side, due to which, the appellant, his son and another person sustained injuries. The Police registered a case in crime No.143 of 2006 for the offence under Section 337 of IpC and filed charge sheet u,hich was numbered as C.C.No.26I of 2006 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate at Hayathnagar, Cyberabad, u,herein it is specifically stated that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.3 bus. The ciaimant filed O.P.No.l927 of 2006 claiming an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- against the respondents under various heads. Dissatisfying with the amount awarded b5r the Tribunal to an amount of Rs. 1,85,0751 , the appellant fiied the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appeliant IS having agricultural lands and he is doing agriculture apart from attending other works and he used to earn Rs.7,00Ol- per month. However, the Tribunal calculated the income o[ the appellant only at Rs.3,OOO/- per month on the ground that the appellant has not produced the evidence. -t t ti:e i

5. He further submitted that as per the Judgmcnt of the Hon'ble Strprurrne Court in RamachandraPpd a Mantager, Rogal Sundaram Alliancel, the Tribunal ougl-It to ltave taken the income o1 the appellant at Rs.4,5O0/- 1)()r mol1th. He further subnritted that the appellant sustain:d ll-a cture and grievous injuries and to establish the same, the appt-'llant filed Ex.A14 disabiLitv certificate issued by the Orl,hopedic Doctor, wherein it i s specifically mentioned that tirr: appt:liant has sustained 30'/c disability, however, the Tribunal u'ithor"tt properly considering th3 same, had taken the disabilit-v-. cnlv ie'. l0'X, and has awarded nreager amount of compensation

6. Per contruL, learned counsel for respondent No.2 as u,el1 respondent 1trc,.3 submitted that the Tribunal aiter taking into consideration rf the oral and documentary evicience itas rightly arvarded an ..urrount of Rs.1,85,0751 - and thr: appeliant 1s noL entitled for e:-r rancement of compensation as claimed b-y him in this appeal ' (20I 1) 13 scrcr 2 3'r r' ,l a'r 4

7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the records. It is not in dispute that tire appellant sustained grievous injuries and fracture to right femur and right tibia and other lacerated wounds over the left eve-lid and undergone for operation for both the fractures and inserted nail and plate. It is also not in dispute that in trx.A14 disabilitv certificate, issued by pW2, u,ho given treatment 1o the appeilant, wherein it is specifically mentioned that the percentage of disabilitv sustained by the appetlant is 3001,, however, the Tribunal rn the absence of anv contra evidence, taken the disability of the appellalt only at l},,t,. The Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.15,0OO/_ towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,O00/- tou,ards transportation charges, though the appellant w,as admrtted in Kamineni hospital as inpatient on

26.O2.2006 and he was discharged on 10.03.2006 and thereafter he has taken treatment continuously. In such circumstances, this court is of the considered view that the appe ant is entitled to an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and' suffering, tran sportatf n charges and extra nourishment, in addition to the amountLwarded by the Tribunal. 5 B. It is per'-inent to mention that at the tirne of zrccident the appellant \\.as aged 35 years and is doing agr.cultr-Lle. Even in the absence o - any evidence, the income of thr: appelJant can be taken at Rs..t,5O0/ per month as per the principle laid rlown in Ramachandru.ppa (supra). Therefore, this Ccurt is of the considered vie rv that the appellant is entrtled to an amount of Rs.18,O00/ 'lu,ards loss of earnings for four rnonths (.11 Rs.4,500/ pe:- month. The appellant is entitie,C to an amount of \ Rs.91,SO0/ (4,500 x 12 x 17 x 1O%) for the drsabilitl susrained t I b5r him. ln a,ilition to the above, the appellant :.s alsr.r entitied to an amount ol- ?s.10,00O/- towards litigation e::tr)enses as per the principle laid r-lo',vn by the Hon'ble Supreme Crc,urt in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another2. The amount au,arded bv the Tribunal at 1Rs.93,875/- towards medical expens,rs is nor disturbed

9. In the r,rsult, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowecl enhz;.ncing the compensatron amount ar.l,arded by the Tribu nal from Rs. 1,85,075/ to Rs.3,O6,675/-. The enhancr:d am,runt shall carry interest ;tL 7.SVo p.a. from the date of perition tilt the date 20 r4 (5) Al_t).lt s( () of reaiization. The respondents Nos.2 to 4 are directed to C deposit the above said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant is directed to deposit the deficit court fee before the Tribunal. On such pavment of court fee only, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No \ \ To Miscellaneous petiti,ons, if any pending, sha1l stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- T. TIRUMALA DEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFIGER

1. The Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC), Hyderabad. (if any Lower Court record) 2. One CC to SRl. VATCHUTA RAlr4, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. BUCHI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to SRl. R ANURAG, Standing Counsel FOR APSRTC [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies o HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 / I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2002 of 2014 1$E SirAfC: 3)( 21l\l\q M tJ o o E .b * r'f C u. '{{tt^'' -. ALLOWED { IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD . FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO IHOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 2002 OF 2014 Between: K. Shankar, S/o. IVlallaiah, Occ Agriculture, R/o. H.No. 16-2-44414, Moosara, Malakpet, Hyderabad. CLAIMANT/APPELLANT AND '1 . B.Raja Ravindra Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, Occ: Business, R/o. Plot No. 39, Near Collector Office, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District.

2. The New lndia Assurance Co., LTd., Rep. by its l\Ianager, T.P- Claims Cell' Madam Mohan Buildings, R.P.Road, Secunderabad. (Policy No. issued by Nalgonda Branch Office and valid frcm 12-04-2005 lo 11-04-2006)

3. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its tvlanaging Director, lvlusheerabad, Hyderabad.

4. A.P.State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Depot Managaer' Nalgonda, Bus Depot, Nalgonda Town, Nalgonda District. (Bus No AP 24 u-1008) ...RES'.NDENTS/ RES'.NDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Nlotor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree passed in tV.V.O.P.No. 1827 of 2006 dated 14-11-2OoB on the file of the Xl Additional Chief Judge (FTC), at Hyderabad. *,.,, This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the IVIVOP and upon hearing the arguments of SRl. V ATCHUTA RAM, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI. C BUCHI REDDY, Advocate for the Respondents No.2 and of Sri R.ANURAG, Standing Counsel FOR APSRTC for Respondent nos.3 and 4. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 petition till the date of realization; That the li4oktr Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t enhancing the compensation amount awarded Rs. 1,87,075/- to Rs.3,06,675/_; re and hereby is allowed by the Tribunal from 2 That the enhzrnced amount sha, carry interest @ 7 50/o p.a. from the date of 3. That the .eso{)ndents z !? l are be and hereby direct,:d to deposir the above (vv., rrrurrtrrs rrom lne date of r3ceipt of a copy . of this Judgnt,nt: be and herebv directed to deposit the rjeficit court fee i ilfxtT"'?fl8'Ji:1 ',' : ilf,1":ii'I,i[r?:IT^"Jl:tcourt ree onrv, the appe,rant is be and herebv .?,o amount without furnishing any security ., ..-.--, 6 That ,rr; ;; ;io;;r;l; the decree of the Lower c"rit rrr', ii - Ln a[ other res,ects; an /. that there shall be a no order as to costs in this appeal sard amount vrithin a period of t*" ,J"t,J,rlILi'i conrirmeo "iJnJs //TRUE COPYII ^ 3 31.l^'ilT'#t', s,RlH ,1\ l! 'lSECTION OFFICER 1 The Xl Addrtionzrl Chief J z. fwo cD copies Judge (FTC), Hyderabad. (if an'y Lower t)ourt recoid) w To HIGH COURT DATED:1010112025 / DECREE MACMA.N o.2002 of 2014 ALLOWED 0 \5