The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NI I{DIKONDA JIIDGIIENT: M.A.C.M.A.NO.490 0F 20.20 This M.A.C.M.A. has been frled by tr : appellant- claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi<:. :s Act, 1988 (for short, ttre Act,1988) being aggrieved by th : Award and decree, dated 22.10.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.638 o 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tr .bunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, th': parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed befort: the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts.of the case are that rr r 07.O4.2OO9 in the morning hours, the petitioner, being drir, t r of RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-2-3625 was proceeding from E asar towards Nizamabad and when the bus reached nea- Ashoksagar, Nehrunagar, Yedpally Mandal at about 9:20 AIvt the driver of accident vehicle i.e., another RTC bus bearinp No.AP- I 1-Z- 5536 coming from Nizamabad towards Bodha n, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at hr5 h speed and dashed petitioner's bus. As a result of which, he petitioner sustained grievous injur5r over the head, fractu I e to his right i 2 NNR.J macDa_490_2020 side ribs and also received other grievous injuries all over the body and his face was disfrgured.

4. Immediately, after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad in 1Og Ambulance and from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was admitted as inpatient from 07.O4.2OO9 to 18.04.2OO9 and he underwent treatment and operations. After discharge, he underwent follow up treatment in the said hospital and a,lso with other private doctors. The petitioner incurred an amount of Rs. lO,OOOl_ towards medical expenses. According to the petitioner, the accident has occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the accident bus.

5. The petitioner was working as driver in TGSRTC and earning a sum of Rs.2O,OOO/- per month. Apart from job, he was also doing agriculture work and earning a sum of Rs.1O,OOO/- per month. After the accident, he is unable to attend his duties as earlier and became unfit to attend his agricultural work and thus he sustained permanent partial disabilit5r, which a_ffected his income badly. Hence, he filed claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,OO,OOO/_. 3 NNR,J macEa-490_2(DO

6. Respondent Nos. 1 alrd 2 jointly hled written statement denying the averments made in the :laim petition including the manner of accident, sustaining o injuries and subsequent treatment and operation. They a r o denied the medical expenses incurred by the petitioner. rurther, they also denied tJle age, avocation and income of he petitioner alrd also stated that the petitioner has no cau r : of action to frle this petition and that ttre quantum of , ompensation claimed by him is exorbitant and hence, they pr ry to dismiss the petition

7. Basing on the above plez dings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: "(1) Whether the accident occurred on O7,O2.2OO9 at ab ) t 9:2O AM near Ashoksagar, Nehrunagar Village, accrd -- t occurred due to rash and negligent driving of RTC ll s bearing No.AP- I l-2-5536 by its driver? (2) whether the petitioner received injuries in t r t accident? (3) whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation) [ so, to what amount and from which respoadent? (4) To what relieP

8. During the course of trial, the petitio rer examined P.Ws.l and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6 anl Ex.Cl. On behalf of respondents, R.W. 1 was examin rd, but no documents were marked. l I I I 4 NNR,J macma 4go 2020

9. After considering the entire oral and documentary evidence besides the submissions made by both the parties, the Tribunal canre to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to tJle rash and negligent driving of driver of accident vehicle i.e., RTC bus bearing No.Ap_l l_2_5536, belongs to TGSRTC. Hence, the l"t respondent being Depot Manager of the accident bus and 2"a respondent being the controlling authority of the accident bus are jointly and severally liable to. pay compensation of Rs. 1,02,300/_ to the petitioner. lO. Being aggrieved and unsatished with the quantum of compensation awarded, tJ:e petitioner preferred the present appeal stating that due to the rash and negligent driving of accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries a-ll over the body and his face was disfigured and on various parties of his body. It is stated that immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad from there to NIMS where he was admitted as inpatient frorn OZ.O4.2OO9 to la.O4.2OO9 and he underwent operation. Though the petitioner is entifled for tota-l claim of Rs. 17,01,0O0/_, but having considered nature of accident sustained by the \-/ ..+r4 5 NNR,J mama-490_2020 petitioner limiting the claim to the extent of Qs.2,OO,OO0/- even the said amount was not awarded b1 the learned Tribunal. It is further stated that the Trit r nal awarded meagre amount of compensation i.e., Rs, 1,02, |OO/- though he is entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,00, - )O/-. ll. Heard Sri Y.S.Yella Nand Gupta, k:irned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri N.Srus;l Lman Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSRTC, app,r rring for the respondents

12. Having heard both parties, now tl e point that arises for consideration in this appeal is vhether the appellant is entitled for enhanceaent of coro pensation as prayed for, ifso to what extent?

13. PTOINT: The main grievance of he appellant before this Court is that though the appellant st stained three grievous injuries, the learned Tribunal did .-r tt choose to consider same and granted only Rs.25,Oi C/- towards grievous injuries and also granted an arEount : ' Rs.3O,OO0/- towards pain and suffering. L4- Admittedly, as seen from the medi:al record, it would clearly show that the appellant said to lLr we sustarned 6 NNR,J macma_490 -2020 three grievous injuries, fracture to right side ribs and other grievous injuries all over the body which are not rebutted by the respondents b5r way of any oral or documentar5r evidence, as such the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards pain and suffering in respect of other two injuries. As such this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Rs.SOrO(X)/- towards otJ-rer two grievous injuries.

15. In respect of loss of earnings though the petitioner is said to be an RTC Driver working in Nizamabad_I Depot and also doing agriculture and earning Rs.l0,O00/_ per month apart from Rs.2O,OOO/- per month as RTC driver. Admittedly, the petitioner being an RTC employee, he has medical reimbursement facitty. Therefore, loss of income does not arise. As regards agriculture income, no document is Itled by the petitioner. In the absence of any specific income proof, the said plea cannot be accepted and the same is admitted by the petitioner. Therefore, ttris Court is also not inclined to grant any amount towards loss of income during the said period.

16. At this stage, leamed counsel for the appellant_ petitioner contended that the petitioner is entitled for \- t/ I 7 NNRiJ macE{49O_2O2O attendant charges as he was admitted in NIIII ) hospital as inpatient and underwent treatment from ()''.O4.2O09 to La.O4.2OO9 and subsequently he gone frl follow up treatment. It is further contended that he was i r hospital for about I 1 days. Considering nature of injuries sustained by him and as the same is not disputed by ttre re tpondents, it can be said that the petitioner might have stick rn to the bed for a minimum period of one month and durin; said period obviously one attendant might have taken care r) him. In that view of the case, this Court is inclined to grant r n amount of Rs. 1O,OOO/- towards attendant charges.

17. [rarned counsel for the petitioner ct rtended that though the petitroner sustained grievous injurie s , the learned Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.2SrO( O/- towards grievous inyury and granted an amount of Rs.32,269 | - towards medical expenses though he incurred a n amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, he incurred medical expenses of Rs. 1,OO,O0O/-, no medical rill is placed before the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court c.( es see €rny ground to interfcre with the amount awarded b1 the Tribunal for grievous injuries and medical expenses. further, the 8 NNRJ macEa 490 2020 Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.S,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, which appear to be reasonable and this Court does not find any error committed by the Tribunat in awarding the said amounts.

18. There is no appeal preferred by t}re respondents questioning the quantum of compensation and also liability, as such in all the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation, which is extracted in the given table.

19. Considering re_assessment made by this Court, the petitioner would be entifled to compensation as fo ows: Description i) Gnevous injury il) Transportationcharges iii) Extra nourishment iu) Attendant charges v) Pain and suffering v) Medical expenditure TOTAL GRA.ITD TOTAL Tribunal Rs. 25,000 High Court Rs. 30,ooo I O,OOO 10,000 5,OOO 30,ooo 32,269 L,O2,269 .rc,OOO L,42,269

20. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,42,269/-. Accordingly, tl.e point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondents. \t ./ 9 I{NRJ mach(490_2020

21. For the said reasons stated above and the entire material placed and re_assessment made by I his Court, the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of co npensation of Rs.1,42,269/- as against claim of Rs.2,OO,() )O/_ which is claimed by the petitioner. IS

22. Accordingly, the appeal pr rtly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.I C2,000/_ to Rs.1,42,269/- (Rupees One lakh forty two t housand two hundred and sixty nine only) and the enhancer[ amount shall carry interest @z .so/o per annum from the date rf petition till the date of realization. The respondents I and j are directed to deposit the said amount together with costr; and interest after giving due credit to the amount already de;r, rsitgd, if an , within a period of two months from the date r,t receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, t.I.e oetitioner is entitled to withdraw the sarne without fur.r rishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, per ding in this appeal shall stand closed SD/- A.H.S,( iOWRI SHANKAR ASSIS'] ANT REGISTRAR ./.;_ IfiRUECOPYII IJ:CTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l ,l lditional District Judge, Nizamabad. (with records if any) (, I I / /

2. One CC to SRI. Y S Yella Nand Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. N.Srushman Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] "4. Two CD Copies JA/PSL f'{- HIGH COURT DATED:2710812025 i i i I I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.49O o12020 1r{ :s c O 2 J[N ?026 * , ,ATO. * \ \ M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED e@b X,tr IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIOAY THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 490 OF 2020 Between T.Pandu Ranga, S/o. Laxman Rao Aged.S-1 years Occ RTC Driver ' N0' 2-77 t\,I-iJBARAKNAGhn, Vitiage Nizamabid Mandal and District. Nizamabad-S03 002 ' ..Appellant(Claimant) AND 1 Telanoana State Road Transport Corporation , represented by its frrriniEins Oiiector Bus Bhavin , RTC. Cross road. Musheerabad' Hyderabad-500020.

2. Telangana State Road Transport Corporfigl, represented by its D^epot - i/6;;F; B"anin Depot, Bodhan-5O3 185 Nizamabad District -503185' ... ResPondents(ResPondents) Appeal u/s. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.638 0f 2015, daled22t10t2ol9 0n the file of the court of the Cn"iir"r, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing.and upon perusrng.the grounds..of .i"""i.'inu Jrao'ment and Ddcree of the Court below and the mqterial p-apers in the NiVoE';;; i,p""n neiting the arguments of Sri Y S Yellanand Gupta Advocate for in" npp"f iini' and of Sri-N.Sruhsman Reddy, learned counsel for respondents This Court doth order and Decree as follows: l.ThattheMAoMAbeandherebyispartlyallowedenhancing.the comoensation from Rs.1,02,0001 to RS,1,42'269/. (Rupees.one LaKh lorty il;"tdr;;.a iwo trunaieo and sixty nine only ) and the enhanced amount ini"riit O 7-SV" per annuir from the-date of petition till the date of it'"]f ""rw realization; and 2 are d irected to deposit the said amount terest after giving due credit to the amount already

2. That the resPondents 1 togettrer with costs and in t' To, l deposited, if any, within a period of Two months from he date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to with, lraw the same without 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. furnishing any security; SD/- A. - S.GOWRI SHANKAR AS! ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-( um-l Additionat District Judge, Nizamabad. (with records if any)

2. Two CD Copies JfuPSL K HIGH COURT DATED:2710612025 DECREE MACMA.No.490 of 2020 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED. \{ cof"\ \G. 6(s,