The High Court · 2025

Counsel for tlre Cross Objector : SRI PALLE SRTHARINATH Counsel for the Respondent : SRI S. VENKATESWAR REDDY The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I I 'r ') THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.382 of 2023 Cross-Obiections No.29 of 2023 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for respondent No.l/cross- objectioner. Perused the entire record.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/insurance company aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District and Sessions Judge, Sangareddy, in M.V.O.P.No.491 of 2013, dated 14.1I .2022, wherein an amount of Rs.15,37,1041- was awarded in a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- by respondent No. l/claim petitioner/cross-objectioner. Challenging the said award and opposing the appeal, the claim petitioner fi led cross-obj ectrons.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are affayed as they were arrayed in the appeal.

4. The claim petition arose on account of occurrence of accident involving respondent No.l. On 21.06.2013 at about 08:00 PM, when t ! I : i d I 2 RY,J MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ_29_2023 respondent NIo.l was traveling in auto bearing No.Ap 23 y 906g to Jharasanghan.r for having darshan of Lord Sangameshwara Swamv, when the auto reached the lirnits of Lingampally village on National l-lighway No.65, one TATA Ace Auto bearing No.Ap 23 y 2303 carne in opposite direction and dashed the auto, as a result, respondent No.l fell out of the auto and su:;tained injuries. Respondent No.l sustained head injury, cotnpound fi'llcture to distal radius, fracture to shaft ol'humorous, second Iinger of cornplete avulsion of pinna and dislocation ot' PIP and other injuries all over the body. She was shifted to Govemment Hospital Sadasivapet, from there to Lalitha Gayathri Hospital, Miyapur and from there to Sunshine Hospital, secunderabad, for better treatment. She is unable to ea,, lbod and was supplied lood through pEG tube evely one hour. She has intermittent febrile spikes, went into coma and has to suffer throughout hcr life. In the circumstances, claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- towards medical expenses and physical sufl-ering.

5. Respondent No.l got examined p.ws.l to 3 and got exhibited Exs.A_ I to A-8. Arpellant got examined R.ws.l and z and got marked Ex.c-1. upon examiriing the evidence on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned i : I l I (i J RY,J MACMA_382_?023 & x-oBJ 29 2023 award leading to filing of the present appeal by the appellant and cross- objections by respondent No.1

6. In the grounds of appeal, it is pleaded by the appellant that there was six days delay in lodging FIR and the same was lodged by implicating the vehicle of respondent No.2 herein. The accident occurred on 21.06.2013 and the FIR is dated 26.06.2013. The driver of the auto wherein respondent No.l was traveling also sustained iniuries and his medical record of NIMS Hospital, shows that he was in intoxicated condition when the accident took place and the record shows that the accident occurred when the.auto was hit by a bus. The Tribunal did not consider the medical record which shows that the auto in which respondent No.1 was traveling was hit by a lo.ry and there is inconsistency in the evidence about the involvement of vehicle. Further, the Tribunal has considered the income of respondent No.l as Rs.6,000/- per month though there was no supporting evidence. Lastly, the Tribunal has awarded 9yo interest on the compensation awarded and the same is against the judgments of Supreme Coun. On the basis of the aforementioned grounds, the appellant prayed to set aside the impugned award. i i t I I I I t: T !I a E t t i i -] I' I I I i I i l ) j I I I I i i I I I I , I i i I i I I I i I i 4 RY,J MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ 29 2023 7. Resporldent No.l filed her cross-objections alleging that she was aged about t'4 years and was working as a private teacher with monthly it'tcotne of I{s.8,000/- at the time of the accident. Du9 to the accident, she is bedridden and has incurred huge expenses and thercfore, sought Rs.50,00,00C/- towards compensation. The Tribunal did not consider the injuries and rtlso the monthly income of respondent No.l. The Tribunal did not consider the disability certificate marked under Ex.A-8 and the oral evidence of P.W.2, while awarding compensation. Respondent No.l was admitted in hospital on 22.06.20L3 with injuries of polytrauma, diffuse axonal injurl', compound fracture of right distal radius and she was in coma on ventilator. At the tirne of discharge, respondent No.l was on pBG tube f-eeds and u'as discharged with tracheotomy and she underwent closed reduction anrl external fixation, with K-wire done for compound fiacture of right distal rldius. Respondent No.l is dependent on others for her day to day activities and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered her disability at lO\Yo and awarded compensation as she is unable to lead her full life and enjoy normal amenities. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation. \\ 5 RY,J MACMA_38'.r_2023 & x-oBJ 29 2023

8. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was malicious implication of the insured vehicle on the basis of delay in lodging the FIR on 26.06.2013, when the accident actually occured on 21.06.2013. Further, the Tribunal failed to consider the fact that the medico legal record at NIMS, Hospital, shows that the driver of the auto was in intoxicated condition when the auto was hit by a bus. Hence, prayed to set aside the irnpugned award

9. [n response, learned counsel for respondent No.l argued that the Tribunal failed to considered the evidence adduced by respondent No.l in right perspective and awarded meagre compensation and therefore, prayed to dismiss the appeal and enhance the compensation by allowing the cross- objections

10. Coming to the first ground i.e., delay in lodging the FIR, after accident respondent No.1 was taken to Lalitha Gayatri Hospital at Miyapur and from there to Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad. When respondent No. t and her husband have come to Hyderabad for treatment, then the FIR was lodged. In the circumstances, there has been delay of six days in lodging FIR. The grievous injuries suffered by respondent No.1 warants i I i x a $ T I I I I 6 r\ RY,J MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ 29 2023 immediate attention towards treatment. In all probabilities, delay can be caused. I l. 1-he appellant got examined R.w.l Dr. Arvind, Superintendent of NIMS Hospital and rnarked Ex.C-1 with respect to discharge record of patient Raje:;hwar Reddy, who sustained injuries in an accident hit by bus while he was dri'ing auto after consuming alcohol at 10:00 pM on 21.06-2013- 'Ihe 'l'ribunal compared the contents of the Ex.C-l with Ex.A-l FlR, wherein the accident took place at Lingampally village outskirts mandal of munipally on National Highway 65. Therefore, held that the versrion of respondent No.l is supported by police records under Exs.A- I to ,\-4, whereas the contents of Ex.c- I are not supported by any evidence- Therefore, did not consider the contents of Ex.C- I with respect to involvem:nt of the vehicle. At this juncture, on the basis of evidence available on record it is not possible to arrive at any conclusion about false implication cf, vehicle solely on rhe basis of delay in lodging FIR or the contents of Ex.c-l. Therefore, this court does not see any reason to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, with respect to false implication and therefore, cannot exonerate the appellant from liability to pay the compensation to respondent No.l. \ 7 RY,J MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ 29 2023 1,2. Corning to the notional income of respondent No.1, it is considered by the Tribunal at Rs.6,000/- per month, the same is disputed as there is no supporling evidence. On the sanle aspect respondent No.1 filed her cross- objections stating that she was hale and healthy before accident was earning an amount of Rs.8,000/- per month by working as teacher in a private school. Except self-serving oral evidence of respondent No.l as P.W.1., the entire police record shows that respondent No.l was housewifb The said factum is reflected in Ex.A-l F[R-cum-complaint and Ex.A-3 charge sheet as wel[. Since there can be no proof of income of housewife, the Tribunal has taken the notional income of respondent No.l AS Rs.6,000/-. The same seems appropriate in the circumstances and therefore, need not be interfered with.

13. A perusal of the Ex.A-8 disability certificate shows that respondent No. 1 suffered 57Yo of the physical disability with respect to post traumatic sequel limbs of right upper limb and left lower limb. These injuries may not lead to 100% functional disability. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to consider the functional disability at L00yo and the percentage of disability can be taken as per Ex.A-8 at 57%. The Tribunal while cognptrting the compensation on account of disability committed two effors. ! t; n,! i i I I i i I I I I I : :l! I. I I i i I I I l 8 RY,J MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ_29_2023 One is the percentage of future prospects and the other is with respect to deduction cf personal expenses. Respondent No.l was housewife, therefore, the frrture prospects shall be taken at 40o/o and not 50olo as considered by the Tribunal. No amount can be deducted towards personal expenses in cases of injuries. The notional income of respondent No.1 shall be take n at Rs.6,000/- and adding 40o/o of future prospects rnakes the monthly incorne as Rs.8,400/-. Since respondent No.l was 44 years, the multiplier applicable as per the.ludgment in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherr, is 14. The loss of income due to disability is calculated as: Rs.8,400/- X 12 X 14 X 57/100: Rs.8,04,384/-. L4. The Tribunai has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.9,20,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, as such this Court sees rLo reason to interfere with the same.

15. Respondent No.1 is also entitled for Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities a;rd Rs.10,000/- towards simple injuries sustained by her in the 'zoo96y scc t:: r i I 1i (-' 9 RY,.I MACMA_382_2023 & x-oBJ 29 2023 accident. In total, respondent No.l is entitled to an amount of Rs. 19,34,384/- in all respects.

16. Coming to the interest awarded by the Tribunal, on the basis of the recent judgrnents of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the interest awarded by the Tribunal requires no interference.

17. [n the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed and the cross-objections is partly allowed by enhancing the amount granted by the Tribunal fiorn Rs.15,37,1041- to Rs.I9'34,3841- with interest at 9o/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, respondent No.1 herein is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security. Respondent No.1 shall deposit deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. \ To, SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The lll Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy I i

2. One CC to SRl. KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. PALLE SRIHARINATH Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ e ASR/PSL ! I S"r "' -ii_i :1 n I { I HIGH COURT DATED i'29108t2025 \ ! E JUDGMENT MACMA.No.382 of 2023 & CROSS OBJECTIONS 29 OF 2023 1 $ tts t$lt o() .hr "r, ti DISMISSI]YG THE APPEAL & PARTLY ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS t 0 2L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR TI.IE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE N/VENTY NINTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CROSS-OBJECTIONS No. 29 OF 2023 i I I I I I I I \ a I I I I {' I I I i I I I i Between: Shriram. General lnsurance. Co.Ltd., Rep. by Legal Managar, Flat No'401 & +OJ, lV Floor, H.No.3-6-517,4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcade, Street No.6, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. APPELLANT/RESPONDENT No'2 AND

1. Smt. Adama Padmaja, wo.Narsing-Rao, Age 40 years, occ. House Hold, and pvt. Teacher, n6w mentally disorder, Rep. by her husband Adama Narsing Rao, S/o.Yettaiah, Age ++ ygars, Occ Pvt Employee, R/o.Lakdaram Vlllage, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. RespondenUPetitioner

2. Mahender Sharma, S/o.Ramdas Sharma, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Tata Ace " Auto bearing No.AP23Y23O3, R/o.H.No.6-1:298, PSML Sadashivpet Town, Medak District.

3. AiaV Kumar Rai, S/o.Brahma Chari Rai, Age 32 years, Occ. Auto Driver, R/o. GangolidhiVillage, Post Themabhujurga Tq, Dondi, Dist. Durga, now R/o.Sadasivpet Town, Medak District. RESPONDENTS/ResPondent Nos.l & 3 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the the Judgment and Decree passed in MVOP No.491 of 2013, dated 14-11.2022, on the file of the lll Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy Ir Between Smt. Aclama Padmaja, Wo.Narsing-Rao, Age 40 years, Occ. House Hold, and Pvl. _Teacher, now mentally disorder, Rep. by her husband Adama N.arsing Rao, s/o.Yettaiah, Ag9 44 years, oc'c. pvt Employee, R/o. Lakdaram Village, Patancheru Mandal, Medak District. Cross-Objector/Respondent No.'1 /Claimant AND 1 shriranr. General llguglc_e,_co.Ltd., Rep. by Legal Managar, Flat No.401 & 403 l\/ Floor, H.No.3-6-517, 4th Ftooi, Sai datta Arcide, street No6, Himaya thnagar, Hyderabad. ...... Respondent/AppellanVRespondent No.2

2. Mahenrjer sharma, s/o.Ramdas Sharma, Age Major, occ. owner of Tata Ace Auto benri n g No.Ap23y2303, R/o. H. N o. 6 -1 :299, pstrl t_ Sadashivpet Town, Medak District. 3 {jay K1lmqr Rai, s/o.Bralpa chariRai, Age 32 years, occ. Auto Driver, R/o. 9angolidhi Village, Post Themgplryjurga iq, OonOi, Dist. Durga, now R/o.Sa,Jasivpet Town, Medak Distribt. - (Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are not necessary parties in this petition) Respondents/Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Rangareddy _ 1 & 3 The Cross Objections filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.p.C., against the Order'and Decree Passed in M.V.O.P. No.491 of 2013, dt.04.11.2012 on the file of the MACT-curn-lll Addt. District Judge, Sangareddy. oRDEti': The Appeal and Cross Objections coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Petition itnd upon hearing arguments of Sri S. Venkateswar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA and for Respondent in Cross Objections and of Sri palle Sriharinath. Advocate for Respondents in MACMA and for the Cross Objector in Cross Objections. That thi; Court doth Order and Decree as follows: l. That th s Court while dismissing the appeal, partly allowed the Cross Objections.

2. Thatthecompensation isbeherebyenhancedfrom Rs.15,37,1041-to Rs.19,34,384/- with interest atgo/o per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the appellant and Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 jointly and severally within a period of rwo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

4. That on such deposit, Respondent No.1 herein is entitled to withdraw the entire amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any security.

5. That the Respondent No.l shalldeposit deficit Court fee. if any. 6. Save as aforesaid, the averments of the decree of the Tribunal are confirmed in all other aspects;

7. That there shall be no order as to costs. UTW(ePy u To l. The III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Sangareddy. 2. Two CD Copies a ASR/PSL SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL ISTRAR DEPUTY REG [email protected] $pftu(p, HIGH COURT DATED:',2910812025 JUDGMI=NT MACMA.No.382 of 2023 & CROSS OBJECTIONS 29 OF 2023 DISMISSII{G THE APPEAL & PARTLY 1\LLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS / /