The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.P RIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.36 93 0F 2009 JUDGMENT: l.Dissatisfleclwiththecompensationawardedbythelearned Motor Acciclcnts Claims Tribunal (I Adclitional District Judge)' Khammam (for short, the Tribunal), in O'P No' 1344 of 2004' dated 18.04.2007, the petitioner/ inj ured in the said O P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation zrmount

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as thel' rvere arrayed before Lhe learned Tribunal

3.ThebrieffactsoftheCaSearethatthepetitionerlrleda petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act' 1988 claiming compensation of Rs 1,00,00O/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that look place on 13 i0 2002' It is stated by the petitioner that on 13'|O'2OO2' when the petitioner and his u'ife q'et'e rvalking along the road near a culvert in Yedulapuram, the driver of Auto bearing No AP-20-T-9292 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit [he petitioner from back side. As a result, the petitioner fell down and suffered grievous injury over head, left hip, left hand' forehead and fracture of hip joint besides other simple injuries' Immedialely, he was shifted to Ctlre Hospital, Khammam and iater to Government Hospital, Khammam u'here C T Scan and X-rays i I i ,l 2 MGP,] MACMA.3693 ol 2A09 were taken and operation was conducted over left hip joint of the petitioner and steel plates were inserted. Subsequently, he consumed medicines and spent a sum of Rs.IO,OOO/_ towards medical and other expenses. 4' Based on a complaint, police of Khammam Rural police Station registered a case in Crime No.290 of 2OO2 under Sections 337 and 338 IPC against the driver of the said Auto.

5. it is stated by the petitioner that he is a private employee and used to earn a sum of Rs.2,0OO/_ per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he lost his earnings and as the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto, as such, he hled claim petition against respondents 1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of crime Auto bearing No.Ap_2O_T 9292

6. Respondent No.l/owner of the crime auto hled his counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, occurrence of accident, involvement of Auto, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone by the petitioner and disabilit5z sustained by him and prayed to dismiss the claim against him.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, narration of accident, age, avocation and earnings of the petitioner, / 3 MGP) MACMA.j693 of 2009 injuries, disability and treatment undergone by the petitioner and contended that there was contributory negligence on part of the and that the ciaim of petitioner in the alleged accident compensation is excess and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

8. Based on the pleadings made by both parties' the learned TribunalhadframedthefollowingissuesforConductingtrial:- i. Wather Bhukya KiLshnr injured in a motor occident ocatrred on 13' 10 2002 due to rash and negligent diuing oJ Auto beoring No AP'20'T'9292 bg its driuer? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitled to ong compensation? If so, to tuhat amount and from which of the resPondents? iii. To what relieJ?

9. During the course of trial, the petitioner/ injured examined himself as PW1 apart from examining PW2 on his behalf and got marked Exs.Al to A6 and Ex Xl on his behalf' On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced' however' Ex Bl-Copy of insurance policy was marked on behalf of respondent No.2 / Insurance ComPanY 1O. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record., the learnecl Tribunal had partly-ailowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs'4'6821- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from O3 11'2OO4 till the date of deposit. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded' the l I i \\ t 4 MGP,! MACMA.I693 ol 2009 petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same. I 1. Heard arguments submitted by Ms.K.Sirivennela Reddy, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri p.prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel on record for the appeliant/ injured. As Sri Katta Lakshmi Prasad who filed vakalat on behall. of respondent No.2/lnsurance Company had passed away, his daughter, Ms.Sralya Katta, represented Company. Peruse d the recorcl. respondent No.2 / Insurance

12. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/injureci as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of pW2_Orthopedic Surgeon and Ex.Xl case sheet and awarded meager compensation towards the injuries sustaincd by him. It also failed to consider that the petitioner lost his earnings ror 4 monLhs as he was bed ridden due to the fracture injuries sustained by him and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance company contended that the rearned rribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary. 74 Now the point that emerges for determination is, -------- tleeW .: .:4..;... ./ f 5 MGP,I MACMA.3693 oI 2009 Wrcther the oppellant/ iniured is entitled for enhancement of comP ensation? POINT:- 1 5. Since there is no clispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the hndings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects The only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of comPensalion.

16. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal arvarded an amount of Rs.4,6821- towards compensation out of which, Rs'2,000/- was awarded towards injuries, pain and sufferance and the remaining amount of Rs.2,6821 - was awardcd towards medical bi11s' 17 . The main contention of the learned counsel lor the appellant/ injured in the present Appeal is that though the appellant examined PW2-Doctor to prove about the injuries sustainedbyhim,butthelearnedTribunalfailedtoconsiderthe same. 18 PW2-Orthopedic surgeon deposed in his evidence that the was admitted in their Hospital as inpatient petrtloner

14.to.2002 with Pelvis Fracture, Head injury (Po$trauma) and simple injury at left shoulder, left elboq' which got healed with 6 MGP,) MACMA 369j oJ 2009 scars and was discharged from the hospital after one month with an advise of 3 to 4 months bed rest and follow up treatment and after 6 months, when pW2 examinecl the petitioner, he noticed that the fractures sustained to him are healed and he can do his usual works except walking long distances.. During his cross_ examination, he admitted that as per Ex.A3, the injury sustained by the petitioner is only one simple injury. He also denied the suggestion that the petitioner \ ras not having any fracture injury.

19. A perusal of Ex.A3-Report of Duty Medical Officer, Government Head euarters Hospital, Khammam, clearly discloses that the petitioner suffered tenderness over public bone and sustained only '1'simple injury.

20. Therefore, considering trx.A3-Medical certificate and the admission made by pW2 in his cross_examination lhat the petitioner sustained only one simple injury, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards one simple injury instead of Rs.2,OO0/- as awarded by Tribunal.

21. Upon calculating the medical biils liled under Ex.AS, this Court found that the petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 14,555/- towards medicines and is inclined to award the same.

22. It is contended by the petitioner that he incurred loss of earnings for 4 months for taking bed rest due to the injuries ( I I I 1 MGP,! MACMA3693of2Oo9 sustained by him. The evide nce of PW2 also corroborates the contention made by the petitioner' Since the petitioner stated that he was earning Rs.2,O00/- per month by doing private job' this Court, considering the same, awards a sum of Rs 8'000/- tou'ards Ioss of earnings for 4 months'

23.Also,consideringthepainandsufferingundergonebythe pctitioner due to the injuries sustained by him and the period of tre atment undergone by him, this Court is inclined to award a sum of l?s.5,0O0/- tou'ards pain and suffering; Rs'1'0OO/- torvards attcndant charges during the period of treatment and hereby modify the lindings awarded by the Tribunal as under:- S.No. Details of llead Amount awarded by Tribunal Rs.2,000/ Rs.2,6a2l' 1 simple ir-r.1ury Mcdical bills Loss of earnings during the period of treatment Pajn and suffering Attcndant charges 1 2 3 4 5 6 Amount awarded this Court Rs.5,000/ Rs. 14,555/ - Rs.8,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.1,O00/ TOTAL COMPENSATI ON Rs.4,682l- Rs.33,555/ - I\

24. So far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded interest @) 7.5o/o per annum from the date of number of numbering of O.P. till the date of deposit of compensation' This Court' relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v' 8 MGP,I MACMA-3693 oJ 2OO9 Rajbir Singh and othersl hereby award interst @ 7.So/o per annum from the date of petition t l the date of realization. As far as liability is concerned, since Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy was in force as on the date of accident, therefore, respondent Nos.l & 2 both are jointiy and severaliy liable [o pay corr.rpensation.

25. In the result, the Appeal is partly_allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,6g2/_to Rs.33,555/- which shail carry interest @ 7.So/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondent Nos l & 2 jointly and severally. The respondents r &2 are directed to deposit the compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appellant/ injured is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shalf stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. SRI A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY RTISTRAR l*a- sEcttoN oFFlcER

1. The file of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge Khammam.,(with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRt. P PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt. KATTA LAXMT PRASAD, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies t/' { To, HIGH COURT DATED: 2110312025 .x JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3693 of 2009 b /f) 7.' /1" 7 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS [32s3] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3693 0F 2009 Between: Bhukya Krishna, S/o Kaliya,Ageg-93 V?r:, Occ. private Employee, Rl/o pedda Thanda Viltage, Khammah nurat NIaridal,'Khamm;m -Oistriit. ' AND ...AppellanUClaim_.petitioner. 3 y Vglkg! 8"99y, S/o Laxma Reddy, Occ Owner of Bajaj Detivery Van [Auto )p:1P_?9 l9?e2i Rr/o Aremputa Vitiage, xnammam n'uiat rr/andlr, nnammam Utstflct. 4. The New lndia Assurance. Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch l\rlanager, 9:3f143 Otd Ctub Road, NearVinodna fneiire,-kf,immam fown, Xna"mniam District. ...Respondents/ Respondents. Appear fired under Section r73 of Motor vehicres Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in o.p.No.1344 0f 2oo4 dated. 1810412007 0n the tte 6t tne chairman, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum- r Additionar District Judge Khammam. .. lhis appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal the judgment and decree of the Tribunai- and the maieriar piper.r-n tne rraVoF -ano upon hearing the arguments of SRl. p PRABHAKAR nEoov, Rovocate io,- ln. Appellant and of SRr. KATTA LAXfvfl PRASAD, Advocate for the Responol.t rrr..z. This court doth Order and Decree as follows. 1 . That the lrrotor Accident. civir [\/isceflaneous Appear be and hereby is partly- allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded oy tnl riiounar from Rs.4,682/- to Rs-33,555/- which shail carry interest @ t.s.i-ier annum from the date of petition tiil the date of' rearization-pry;bL iy respondent Nos.1 86 2 join y and severally. he respondents 1 and ^, are directed to deposit the compensation a period of 2 months tr."rn in" J'G of receipt of a copy of this

2. That t within jud g ment , 4 ( That upon such deposit, the appellant/injured is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security' That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed' in all other resPects; and That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/- SRI A.V.S. DEPUTY RE PRASAD ISTRAR {)., sEcTlqN : OFFICER 1 The file of the Chairman, Itlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge Khammam ,(with records' if any)

2. Two CD CoPies To, t- HIGH GOURT DATED: 2110312025 DECREE MACMA.No.3693 of 2009 + I g 5 4 7 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS