The High Court · 2025

grievclusinjuries.lmmediately,hewasshiftedtoGovernment Hospttal, Nalgonda, from there he was shifted to Srilaxmi Hospital, Nalgondaandontheadviseofdoctor,hewasreferredtoSriSai NeuroSuperSpecialtyHospital,atKachiguda,Hyderabad.Hiscase \ \ 2 ETD., MACMA No.498 2021 is that he incurred huge medical expenditure and thus, sought a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that he was not at all rash and negligent in driving the car and that he is not liable to pay any compensation. He further submitted that respondent No.3 is the insurer of the vehicle and thus, in case of any compensation awarded by the Court, it is only respondent No.3 who is liable to pay compensation.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that he has sold the Car bearing No.AP-09-AN-0636 to Maruthi True Value on 25.08.2014 and in turn the said tt/aruthi True Value has sold the vehicle to respondent No.1 and by the date of accident, the car was already sold away. Therefore, he is noway concerned to the present case.

6. The respondent No.3 has filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.498_2021 avocatior and income of the petitioner. rt is further contended that the driver of the car was not hording varid driving ricense as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Ba:;ed on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- "1. Whether the petitioner sustalned injuies due to rash and negligent driving of driver ot Car bearing No.Ap_Og_AN_0636? 2. Whether the pefiioler is enti ed for compensation, if so, what amount and from whom?

3. To what retiep,' L To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pWs 1 to 5 and Exs.,Al to 41 .l were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked.

9. Ba:;ed on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.13,54,g27l_. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the craimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

10. Heard the submissions of Smt. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel lor the appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, learned counsel for resporrdent No.3. t ETD,.. MACMA No.498-2021 4

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitionerhassufferedalotduetotraumaticparaplegiapursuantto theaccidentandthathehassustainedSeverespineiniury.He furtherarguedthatthepetitionerusedtorunaCyclestoreandused toearnRs.25,000/-permonth,butthetribunalhastakenameager amount of Rs.30,000/- per annum and thus' arrived at a very low amountofcotnpensation.Hefurthersubmittedthatthedisability sustainedbythepetitionerisSB%asstatedbytheDistrictMedical Board.However,thepetitionerisinvegetativestateandthusl0o% lossoffunctionaldisabilityhastobetakeninthiscase.Hetherefore, prayedtoenhancethecompensationbyconsideringallthese aspects. He further argued that PW4 was examined to prove the disabilityofthepetitionerwhodeposedthatpetitionerisin vegetativestateandhereqttiresanattendanttoperformevenhis routinedailyactivities.Hence,theattendantchargesalsohavetobe awarded in the Present case

12. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has arguedthatthedisabilitycertificateitselfdisclosesthatitisa temporary disability and the petitioner has failed to file any proof of hisbusinessandthathehasnotclaimedattendantchargesinthe 5 ETO.] MACMA No.498_202i claim p'etition before the tribunar and therefore, the same cannot be considerred.

13. Based on the above submissions, this followinlJ points for consideration:_ 1. Whether the claimant is e 'Y!"1i!f{,'!"'ro'o',",0"'Jl"'J*'::::::::r:":;:::::;',,, 3. To what retief? Court frames the

14. &rtrr!_wo..t: a) The case of the appellant is that he suffered a lot due to the injuries in the accident and sustained gg% disability and also incurred huge medical expenditure, but the tribunal has granted meager amount towards compensation. ln support of his case, he got examined pW2lo

4. b) Pw3/Dr'K'V'R shastry who is a senior Neuro surgeon since 2015 ar sKS Hospitar' Kachiguda. rt is ericited from him that he has treated the petitioner as he was admitted on 09.12.2014and that he was operated on 11.12.2014 to stabilize CS, C_6 to T1, T2 with screws anti rods and he was discharge d on 1g.12.20.14. He further deposed fl"at he has again seen the patient on 03.0g.2019 and the patient did not have any significant improvement in neurorigar status in the lower limbs, since the injury was sustained five years ago and ETD,. MACMA No.498 2021 6 that the chances of further recovery are less. lt is further elicited from him that Ex.A4 and A5 are issued by the sKS Hospital, Kachiguda' c) PW2 is the Billing Manager of sai Krishna Hospital at Kachiguda, it is elicited from him that the petitioner paid Rs.2,25,000/- towards inpatient bill at their hospital, Ex'A7 is issued by them. Nothing contra is elicited during the cross examination of PWzand PW3 to discredit their evidence' d) PW4/Dr. l. Kameshwar who is a civil surgeon in orthopedic Department at District Head Quarters Hospital at Nalgonda, he issued Ex.A6 along with the members of the Board. As per their assessment the petitioner sustained 88% disability which is post traurnatic sequel lower limbs sustained due to an accident and they recommended that the said disability has to be re-assessed after three years and that again the applicant has appeared before them on 24.09.201gand that again they have assessed the disability to be gg% under Ex.C1. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that he has not treated the patient. He admitted that he has not mentioned that the disability is permanent or temporary in Ex.A6, but he added that under Ex.C1 it is implied that it is a permanent disability e) PWS/Dr.G. Yadaiah is a Physiotheraphist who runs sri Balaji Physiotheraphy Clinic since December 2014 at Nalgonda' It is 7 ETD,, MACMA No.498_2021 elicited from him that the petitioner attended physiotherapy sessions under l'rim from 20.12.2014 to 30.06.20.15 twice a day. Again from 08.08.2015 to 08.10.2015,01.01.2016 to 31.05.2016, 0.t.06.20.t6 to 30.09.2C16 and 01.10.2016 to 31.10.20j6 and thar totaily petitioner paid Rs;.'15,000/- per month and that he has taken treatment for almost a period of two years, in total he has paid an amount of Rs.2,16,000/- towards physiotherapy. The bill issued by him is at Serial Nlo.18 to 22 in the list of medical bills filed under Ex.A7. mere suggeslions were given in his cross examination which were denied by him. 0 A perusal of Ex.A4llnjury Certificate reveals that the petitioner sustainerd traumatic paraplegia/bilateral pleural effusion, the said document is issued by SKS Hospital, Kachiguda. Ex.A5 is the discharl;e summary issued by the said hospitar which shows that the petitionrrr was admitted on 0g.12.2014 and discharged on 17.12.2014. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued in 2016 by the District Medical Board, which shows that the petitioner sustained 887o of temporary disability i.e., post traumatic sequel limbs due to an accident. Ex.Cl is also a disability certificate, dated 24.09.2019 which is issued in 2019 by the District Medicar Board showing that the sustained 8g% disability. Thus, it substantiates the oral evidence of PW3 to 5, pW4 is the doctor who issued the disability certificate. \. \: ETD,. MACMA No.498-2021 .. *j.E-; 8 g) The injuries spoken by PW3 and as disclosed from the injury certificate under Ex.A4 and the discharge summary under Ex.A5 have a nexus with the disability sustained by the petitioner as revealed from Ex.A6 and Ex.c1. lt is further elicited from the evidence of pw3 & 4 coupled with Ex.A6 and Ex.c1 that there was - no much improvement in the condition of the petitioner from 2014 to 2019, thus the disabitity remained to be the same i'e', 88%' The nature of injuries and the treatment undenruent by the petitioners are discussed supra. tt reveals that the petitioner tnust have undergone a tot of pain and suffering cluring the entire period of treatment due to the spine injury. Therefore, a sun'l of Rs.1,00,000/- has to be awarded under the head pain and suffering' h) The petitioner age is shown to be 40 years under Ex.A6/the disability certificate issued in 2016 and the date of accident is 2014' Therefore, he might have been aged 38 years as on the date of accident. The contention of the petitioner is that he used to run a Cycle Store to earn his living and used to earn an income around Rs.25,000/- per month. Considering his age, it is opined that the petitioner must have been into some sort of an avocation to earn his living ancl to suPPort his familY' / a - : * I j i t 9 ETD,,, MACMA No.498 2021 i) ln Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. ln the present case, he is stated to have been running a Cycle Store as per the conterrtion of the petitioner. No proof is filed in the present case. Therefore, an amount of Rs.4,S00/_ per month can be assessed as the income of the petitioner on a reasonable hypothesis. j) Keeping in view the injuries and the disability suffered by him, the loss of earnings for a period of one year is awarded. Therefore, an amount of Rs.54,000A i.e., (4,500 x12) is awarded under the head loss of earnings. k) Wittr regard to the medical expenses, Rs.2,16,000/_ towards physiotherapy is awarded and Rs.2,25,000/_ is awarded towards treatment and some medical bills and it also elicited from the evidence of pW2 and 3 that they have also prescribed medicines. Thus, towards the purchase of medicines, specific bi[s are not fired by the petitioner. However, RS.SO,OOO/_ is awarded towards purchase of medicines and the petitioner also liled a bunch of medical bills under Ex.A7 for an amount of Rs.g,4g,g27l_. From the r(2otr) 12 scc 236 J i 10 MACMA No.498_2021 said amount, the bills filed under Ex.A9 that is to an extent of Rs.2,04,0001 and Rs.5,000/- are deducted, as they are not fit for \r { consideration as PW1 failed to examine the authorities of the said hospital to prove the same. Therefore, an amount of Rs.6,39,8271- is awarded under the head medical expenses. l) lt is observed that the tribunal has awarded amounts under the heads like extra-nourishment, medical expenses, pain and suffering and permanent disability, but has not awarded any amounts towards transportation and attendant charges. Though the counsel for lnsurance Company has said that the petitioner has not pleaded with regard to the attendant charges in the petition, it is the common knowledge that when the person is bedridden, he definitely requires an attendant. !t is elicited that the petitioner was suffering with spine injury and could not improve even after five years. Thus, an amount of Rs.{,20,000/- (Rs.2,000 x 60 months) is granted towards attendant charges. Further towards transportation, he would incur transport charges for every visit to the doctor for which also he is not compensated before the tribunal. During the spells of treatment i.e., Sai Krishna Hospital and to the physiotherapist, he must have gone in a vehicle and thus, towards transport charges, awarding an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of 24 months, he would incurJor about Rs.1,20,000/-. "t ,/ ,/ 11 ETD,J MACMA No.498_2021 m) All the other aspects are considered by the tribunal. As per the dicta laid rjown by the Apex Court in Rai Kumar Vs. Aiay Kumal 88% parti,al disability suffered by the petitioner is scaled down to 50% towerrds whole body and the functional disability has to be assessed. Though the counsel says that he is in vegetative state and 1OO% funr:tional disability has to be considered, no such evidence is placed ort record. tt can only be elicited that he suffered 88o/o disability and under Ex.A6, it is shown as temporary disability and Ex.C1, dc,es not disclose any such nature of disability. However, it is inferred by the doctors that there is no improvement in the status of the petitic)ner even in 2019. Therefore, considering the evidence on record, 50% of loss of functional disability which results in Ioss of earnings is taken in this case. Therefore, the income of the petitioner is assess;ed as Rs.4,500/- per month. Therefore an addition of 40o/o towards future prospects would give Rs.6,300/- and then Rs.5,67,000/- (Rs.75,600/- x 50o/o =37,800 x 15) would be the loss of future earnings because of permanent disability. n) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts 'zot t 1to sicc 313 1,00,000/- L2 ET.. MACMA No.498-202r 2 3 4 Loss of earni Loss of future earni Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transPort, attendant charges, extra- nourishment and other incidental Total 54,000/- 5,67,000/- 9,79,8271- 17,00,p:27!- o) The Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,54,8271-, while, this court arrived at a compensation of Rs. 17,00,827/- and hence, it is held that the claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation. Thus, Point No. 1 is answered accordingly

15. Point o.2i- a) ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.17,00,827t- from that of Rs'13,54,8271- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 6% on the quantum of comPensation. ln T. Vijaya takshmi Vs. lJ. Dayamanai3, a Bench of this High c) Court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal to that of 6% to 7.5o/o ' trrtAcMn.N o.2294 of 2o l 6 I, 13 ETD,J MACMA No.498 2021 d) ln F'athulothu Balu vs. Devender singh yadava, a Bench of this High court has increased the rate of interest awarded by the I Tribunal to that of 60/o to 7.5%. e) ln J'adav saroja Bai versus Ghute Naga Rao and Anothef ; a coordinate Bench of this High court has granted interest @ 7.so/o per annunr on the amount of compensation. 0 ln Bandavath Mangla and Another versus Bandavath suresh a,nd others6 and Nationar rnsurance company Limited versus. lvl. venkateswarulu and othersT; atso interest @ I .s% per annurn was granted on the amount of compensation g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this court has been consistently granting interest @ z.so/o on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence, the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is increased to that of z.so/o. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. / o uacMA.x o.322g of 2ot8 t z1zzSCC ontine TS 606 o z0z3 scc online TS 1095 'zoz3 scc online TS I170

16. POTNT NO.3: 14 MACMA ln the resutt, the appear is parfly ailowed, modifying the order and Decree dated o2.oz.zo21 in M.V.o.p.No.45 of 2015 passed by the chairman' Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-r Additionar District Judge, Natgonda, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,54,822t- to Rs. 1z,oo,B2il-. The rate of interest is increased from 60/o to 7.50/o per annum from the date of craim petition ti, realization. However, the interest for the period of deray if any, is forfeited- The rnsurance company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any atready deposited. on such deposit, the appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. No costs. Misceilaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shail stand closed Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To, Judge at Nalgonda. (With records)

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum - I Additional District 2. one cc to sri. Annapurna sreeram, Advocate lopucl 3. One CC to Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies AS/DL .<:W .f er' d .4. ,'i. '' C) $ 5 r\hfi 816 HIGH COURT DATED:151091'.'-025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.498 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWNG THE APPEAL KS ,"1,1,, 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: OF 2021 '198 Between: Ale Yadagiri, S/o. Late Veeraiah, Age.43 years, Occ. Cycle Stores Business, Present Nil, Rio. A.P.H.B. Colony, Munugode Road, Nalgonda Town and District. ..AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. P. Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Sreeramamurthy, Aged. Major, Occ. Managing Director, O/o. Optimize HR Solutions, Ameerpet, Fl/o. H.No. 8-3-1661214, Jeevan Mini Towers, Yerragadda Locality of Hyderabad, PIN -500018. (Owner of Car bearing No. AP-09-AN-0636)

2. V. Ravi Srinivas, S/o. Bhaskar Rao, Age. Major, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Flat No 406, P. No. 333, B.S.Puri Colony, Yerragadda, Hyderabad. (Owner of Car bearing No. AP-O9-AN-0636)

3. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Manager, T.P. Claims-Hub, Posneti Bhavan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. (Policy No. 0505003 1 1 4P 1 0059470 1, valid f rom 25-O4-2O1 4 lo 24-0 4-2O 1 5) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree daled O2lO2t2O21 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 45 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum - | Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal 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 case and upon hearing the argument of Sri. Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That tht: Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is Partly allowed, modifyirrg the order and Decree dated O2.O2.2O21in M.V.O.P. No. 45/2015 passed by the Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Additional District Judge, Nalgonda by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 13,54,827 l- to Rs. 17, OO, 82Tl-;

2. That thr-. rate of interest is increased from 6% to 7.Soh p.a. from the date of claim pt:tition till realization;

3. That however, the interest for the period of delay if any is forfeited; 4. That thr: lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with acr:rued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a c,rpy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited;

5. That orr such deposit the appellant - claimant is be and hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

6. That serve as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That thr:re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Cl'rairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum - I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies AS/DL Fj' I t; i. .: :i HIGH COURT DATED:15,09/'2025 DEGREE MACMA.No.498 of 2021 THE S () I * l'I 5 Iit\R Zrl2fi * PARTLY ,ALLOWNG THE APPEAL rcfzfze .