The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI K.AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: None appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NOs.52O & 326 OF 2O2l COMMON JUDGMENT: IJotlr thcsc rrppc:rls ar-isc oul rif LIrc Order zind Decrcir cl:rted

08.05.20-20 in M.V.O.P.No.)762 of 20l'l passccl by the Charnnan. i\lotol AcLriclent Clairns 'lribunal-cum XXV Ac[ditional Chicf .Judge, CiLl Civil Court, I lvclcrabad (iirr shorL "thc Tribunal").

2. For convenicnce and clarity, thc partics hercin are refcrred to es rhel rr cre arra-r't'd before thc Tribunal

3. 'l'he c:rse ol thc petitioners belirrc thc tribunal is that or-t 0L08.2014 at ab()Llt 1O:45 p.m., the pctitioncr rn'as procecding on Ilondar Activa Scooter bcaritrg No.AP-10 BF-5995 [r-om Clock Tou'er, Sct:undcrabad torr,:rrds his residencc at LIC Colort.r', West Maredpalll', zrnd s'hen shc rcachcd near Governmcnt .Jt-tt'liol' Collcge, SP road, u'irile taking U turtt under the [11' over, a lorry bearing No.AP- 13-X-2720 <lriven bf its dnver in a rash and negligcnt nranncr irt a high speed, darshcd the Honda Activa ol the peLitioner, as a rcsult, shc fe.il down and sustatned blceding ir-rjuries. Lnmediatcly, shc was s}-riftccl to Apollo I'lospital, Secundcrabad, lrom there shc u.as shifted to Apollo Llospital, Jubilec I-til1s, rvhcre shc ltndenvent inpatient treatmctlt and incurred huge mccli<:al exllcnse s Sl-rc claimed a cornpcnsation of Rs.10,00,000/-. [l D.r ' ,(-MA llcs.520 125 202-r

4. The resltOndL_-ltl \o.l remaincd ex-parte

5. The rlspr.rnclcnl No.2 hlrs lileci oounl dcnr rng thc avcrments ol thc 1tr'litic.rn u,ith regard to tltc ,r . rrrrencc of thc accident, agr:. avoczrtion and incorne of tl-rr: petit:r r tr. It is hrrther contended thirt the clri'r'r of thc r:rimc'ehicle cricr r rt possr:ss vahd driving licensi'as o. rrra date ol tlre accirlr:r-rt and irt rhc\ irrc not Iiable to pav ('o[] pcns,r lion. It rs itlso cor.rtcrrclccl ,lt r thc or.r.ncr and insurer of Iluncla .\iLi\.a arL- itlso ile ccssal\ ) lrties 1() lhc proceedings

6. Based on the alrove pleadings, thc Tribuniri ras frarnccl tlte following issur:s for con sideration: 1 2 Vllt.titer l|le ir,Turie.s .srrstarler.l lrrl ..1. 1_n_i:nrr t.t Relne KuDtQ,l ttt lllot'or accrclent o(.t.lt t ecl on ( l to llte re.slt rtttrl tLeglic1r.rtt Lltiurtttl ctl (lrit)"r t.)l Lor rq bt:anrttl i'to.Al, 1 .:) ,y 272A? , 't Kt,tttln ltt t S 2C i/1 (lrt(' i'ne uelut:It, Vltctltet pet tl totler i-s efrtitled rtrttclt anrl fronr ruhorn? lc c()rr1)errsa/r( t lI so. ltor r

3. 'fo rt'hal r ehel

7. To prove their c:ase, Lhe pctitioners got exanl and Dxs.Al to .A9 arncl Ex.Xl u.ere marked. r)r l;ehalf of the respondents no oral c:r,idence u.as adduced, I,r I Ex.Bl \\ras rcdPWslto4 marked \ EID,] MACtulA Nos.S2C -12 6 2021 8 . B:rsed on thc evidencc on record, the Tribunal has all'arded a compens:rtion oi Rs.9,05,000/ Aggricved b1' thc saici order and decree. \4ACMA.No.52O of 2021 is lilcd bv the Insurance Compan]', u.hilc MACMA.No.326 of 2O2l is filed by the claimaLnt

9. Ilcard the slrbmissions of Sri Nondadi Ajay Kumar, lcartred counscl lirr the appellant Irtsutrance Company and Sri P. Pandu Rangi,r Rcddl-, lcarned counsci lbr rcspondent No.2.

10. Lcarned cor.rrrscl for lltr' Insurzutce Comp:rny has submittecl th.rt lhc tribun:rl has ignorcri lhe lzrr:t that thc petitioner tricd ro take zr U turn \\,ithoLlt u'alchir-tg thc vchicular traltic, and t[-tus contributed to thc accidcnt. He lllrthLrr argtted that the tribunal has hcld that tirc petitioncr used lo carn Rs.S,OOQ/- p.. month, rvithont there bcing :rn1' prool'o[ earnings and that the tribunal has grantcd lrLrge amoLltlts Lttrclt:r ,"'arious heads arnd thtts, prar:cd lo reduce the qLlantun o[ contlrensation. He flrtht:r argued thaL no dis:rbi)ity ccrtificzrLc is hled by thc petitioner and thus, no amounl needs to bc granted under thaL hcad and also that the policy was not in force as on lhe date of accident. Hcnce, the insurance company is not liable to pa)' any compensalion. 1 1. 'lhc learncd counsel lor the claiman[s has submitted that the policy is in forcc as per Ex. B I , and t}-ral the respottdent-lnsurance Company failed to examinc any rvitness to prove their contentron 4 ETD,] \:N4A Ncs.5lr) 326 2021 'rot that the policv is in r.rcc. He furthcr a1'gLl( ( r,ra;, Lhcr.c is r.r o e'idenc:c on rccor-rl to shorl, tllat thc accide ,l o(. l.red drrr, 1o the corlributon'.cqligence o1't1tr. pctitior-rcr. Ilc lurl r . su[,rrri,(..1 that the qua.turn :rrr,,ardcd b' thc fribunal is vc r.,. ,, :t,rl iltrLl :,hc: pe(itioncr ra,zrs a (:rilor, apar-t I'r-Orr-i :tttcnclrrrq 1o ir,. ;,.r,r hOusr: l-rolcl dntjcs, shc usccl ro clo tailot-ing rr,ork ancl uscd rr r.n Rs. l.r,()O0/- per monrh and tltitt tl.re tribu.al fail<td lo c.ns,iir rhi srrr;rc: zr'd hzrs assr:ssed an incomc ol Rs.5,O0O/ per nL( rrlt. IIc lirrther argucd thal thc dctctcirs \\'lt() [re:ltccl t].rc pctitiortr \\.(,t.rt t,\irrntncd as PWs 2 and 3, lrut thc tril;trnal tailcd to consi,lr, Lht__ s;rirl rrspect and has ignored t}-rc disabilitv susL:rincd br. tirc r, , r iolt_,r iritrl has not awarded arly amount to$.arcts fi.rtnre 1(, o - t.,rrnitrgs. 'lherclore, hc przr.yccl to cnhanr:c lhc cor.r.t;-rcns:rtir,n L2. Lcar.ed c.trnsel apltc:tri.e f.r thc or.r ner .t Ire r.t.lrir.lr: has argued t.hat the policr. n'as in lorcc :rs on thc d;r'r rI t:re rrr.cident ancl Lhus, the tribtr.al \(as wro.g rn fixing jornl arrr r.:vt,r,r irabirit. and thaL, in casc if anv comltcnsalion has to bc rr rcl. it has lo bc paid only by tl're ir-rsurancc company. Another (.,, ,lcrltiort rztiscd b' the counscl is tl-ral thc dri'er of thi: vchiclc rr r holdirrq 'alid driving Iicense and cven on thztt corrnl, the5,:rre n,r iablr:. l>Lrt it is only the insurancc company, which is ljablc to pa\ rnpcnsatron. E TD,] MACMA Nos 520 3)A )421 5

13. Based on the above rival cor-rtentions, lhis Court frames the lollowing points for determination 1 2 J It4teLLLet tlrc petrhater, LL,lltle gortlg otr llonde Actiua S(:ooler beentlg NI.AP 1O lJ[- .:;./93 Lt)es \..gligetrl rtr clttLitg th.r s( ool(,r conlnbltlLtl(l to IlLt occtdenl ott 01 .08.201 4? Wretht r tlk, con4)ensetiott tlranted bry lle. 'fibtttt<rl is lust arul r ecLsortable? Whetllet lltc orde-r oic[ .lecrce al'tlte TribrurttL need ong iierfererrce? 1'o uthat relief.)

4. Point No. 1: t4 a) Thc case ol thc peLltioncr is [hat, u'hrlc she \t,as going on Activa Scootcr she rnct r.r'ith an 2iccldent zrs ihc drivcr o[ Lhe lorry bearing No.AP 13 X-2720 has clrivcn it ir-r ;r rash and ncgligent manner and clashed hcr Honda Actii a, cluc to rvhich shc sustained inj u rie s. b) A perusal of l.'lR/A1 and Chargc Shect/trx.A2 rcveals that it is laid against the driver ol thc l,orry- be aring No.AP- 13-X-2720. The contents of the charge shcet furthcr rc\real that when the petitioner $,as taking U-turn ut-t<lcr tl-re fl1' ovcr at Sccunderabad, the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 X-272O drove il in a rash and negligent manrtcr and daslted thc llortda Activa of the petitioner. c) PW 1 is the injured rvitness whose evidence is of utmost importance in deciding Lhis issuc. [r-r her evidcnce it is elicited that (; E] O,J \aMA Nos.520 326 202l u'l-lile pr occeding on he r Honcla Actrl,a [caring i\ . \P 10 Bt-- 5!)q5 from Clr<:k Tou,cr to her resiclcr.icc in LIC ()olot, taking lJ-turn under the fly over. the lorrv. bear 2720 drtvcrt bi' irs driver in a rash and ncqligent ; specd, rlzrsltcd hcr Honda A<:tir.a ancl that sll sustainc(l injuries. In her cross examitration, r: u,ere givc-r.r, u.hich were denied by her. .l.ltus. rr,.l rc rr sh c u.ir s s No AIr 13-X- .Lnrrt r, at zr hiulr ic ll thu n artrl ::'r: suqqi: stiot.rs crt: is rrotltinq rnatcrial r)n i.!-cor(l to drscreclit hcr crridence. .l.hcri i r -C, ('ollsi(icriitq thc cvidr:rtr:c: oi I)W 1 couplecl. with the Chargr: Slr .r hr-'ld that thcre u,as no contributon. ncgliqcrtr:c ol I t:rrrcl lilll, ir rs tc i;t titir,rict- rr-t Lhe occr-u rcnce of rhc accident. Point No.l is ansrvered accorclingl-y.

15. Point No.2:- a) Thc pclitioner is aggrieved bv thc ,:tranlurr ('( ) r tl llc n s a t l( ) 11 zrr,.,arded b.v the trjbunal. I r-r sr.r1;port ol ht:r. cirs slti ltas filcd Ex.A3, Lhc Ml,C issucd by thc Apollo Flospit:rl, .,r i i r I( \'(tillS tll,tr she sust::ined injuries in lhe road [raffic acr:icie r r i.r:., nqhl CiIT blecd and su,e lling on the right occipit and shc rvas. rlvisr:cl ivith X ravs and further ir-rstigations. Ex.A5 is thc dis,.:, r issued bt, tl-rc Apollo Hospital which reveals r hat sr r on 02.08.2014 and discharged on 04.0g.2014 anr the details of rhe treatment uncleru,ent bt, tht: r 'titirrnr:r. It is mcntioned in the diagnosis column Lhat she suflcr _. I ,, rrsctcl trafJic accident, traunatic brain injury, bilateral frontat uu:rtnrrhctgek. rt a lso reveals li-gc sllrllmatl tr trs admitte<l I ETD,,I MACMA Nos.520 326 2021 contusion left side greater thctn ighl". trx,A6 is another discharge summary issued by the department of Neuro-Surgery, which reveals that the petitioncr rvas admitted on 05.08.2014 and dLscharged on 14.08.2O14. It is furthcr revealed that she is treated under CGHS. trx.A7 and A8 are [he rncdical biils issuecl b], the Apollo Hospital. Ex.A9 is the outparient assessment form issued by lhe Department of Neurosurgery at Apollo Hosprtal, u,hich shows that she went for follow up trcatment ciuring Nor.ember 2014-2015 on different dates. b) PW2 is a Neuron Surgeon u,ho treated the petitioner at Apollo hospital for her "traumatic brain i{urg, biLateral frontal haemorrhageic contusion leJt side greater than right-" His evidence reveals the details of the treatmenl gi\ren by him to the petitioner. He further asserted that Exs.A3, A5, A6 and A9 arc rssucd by thcir hospital. PW3 is an ENT surgeon at Apollo IIosprtal and hc trcated the petitioner for hcr rnjuries to Lhe righL e:rr. His evidence reveals that the petitroner sustained modcr:rtcly sevcre mixcd hearing loss on the right ear and on the left car, Lhere rs normai hearing sensitivrty with loss at 4K and 8K and that the said hearing loss occurred due to the injuries sustained by hcr in the accident ar-rd that the petitioner was referred to him from the Dcpartment of Neurosurgery. It is elicited in his cross examination that he tested the petitioner for audio logical systcm. Thus, nothing material is ETD,] 1 aMA Nos.520 326 2021 elicited irom these trro u.itnesses during cros: :rat-lrination to discredit thcir eviclencc. c) PW4 is a Rillir-rg lVlanager in ApoLlo Flosp Lr, his evirlcnce rcveals that the petrtioner has paid a srtm , Rs. i,12,310/ ton,irrds thc hosprt.al charges, u,hile the total bill rr i ; IRs. I.32.2.7O I and a discount of Rs.9,960/- was givcn to her. trr. l1 is markecl in hrs evidence. It is obserwed from the award pass,_-,1 by ti-rc tribr-rnal that thc tribunai has considered all the aspccts .' ,,rn e-cjicctl bills, trotaspotletion, attertdant charges, extrct-nouislttt . tt, .l(unoqes lo clothes and flonda Actiua, Ean-nin.gs lost, Ios.s c7 . t,ture earllitrgs. pain ancl suffe.nnq, los.s o/ amenities, los.s o/ hear r r;, loss of srnell otLcl taste" d) Considcrinq the evidencc on record that is r and also the exhibits frled to prove the nature of l j rm PWs 1 to .1 tries susta incd by thc pctitioncr and trcatment undcrwent by hr r it is obscn,eci thal Lhc loss of earnings is awarded for a periocl r 1' lour tnonth s. rvhile the record reveals that the petitioner was , treatlnent till A1tril, 2015 as revealed from thc prc undcr Ex.A9. 'l'hus for over a period of nine months. eder follorv up s: riotior-r s filcd she uas undcr follorv up Lreatment. Therefore, it is opined that t rvould be just and proper to arvard loss of earnings for a period ot line months [o the petitioner. It is asserted by the petitioner that ,he uscd to dcr tailoring work apart from attending her house )Lr lrl dutres, the I ETD,J MACMA Nos.520 326 20 21 monthly income as assessed by the tribunal i.e., Rs.S,OOO/- per month appears to be justificd. On a reasonable hl,pothesis, no proof can be expected with regard to her avocation. Therefore loss of earnings is awarded for a period of nine rnonths i_c,, Rs.4.I,OO0/ (5,000 x 9), while the tribunal has gr:rnred Its.2O,OO0/- under rhrs e) Thus the compensarion granted b1,. the Tribunal Rs.9,05,000/ , while this Court has enhanced it br- Rs.25,000/- Point No.2 is answered accordinglr,. 16, POINT NO.3:- ( i It is held that the order ancl decrec of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to thc quantum o[ compensatron. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.9,30,00O/- lrom that of \ Rs.9,05,O00/- i.e., awarded by the'Iribunal. Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

17. POINT NO.4:- In the result, the MACMA.No.S2O ol 2O2l hled by the lnsurance Company is dismissed, u'hile MACMA. No.326 of 2O2l filed by the claimant is partly a1lou,ecl modifl..ing the O rder :rnd Decree daled 08.05.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.2762 ot 2O1.,i passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civii Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the 10 'r aMn Nos.5lo 326 2021 ETD,J compensation fronr Rs.9,05,O00/- to Rs.9,3O,O( ( i u,hich shall carry int(-.re st @) 7 .5% per annum from the date of : a-im pe ution till realiz:rtion. I{o*,c'cr, the interest for the period of i:iav is lrrrf'eite d. 'l'hcr resprrnde,ts ilr-e directed to deposit the comp rrsrrtior-r a,ouaL lr'ith acc.recl ilrtercst rvithin a period of two montl s frrrn Lhc r,liLlt: of receipt of zr cop\,' of this Juclgment afLer deductll- 3 thc :r.tou,rt if anr. alrcadl. rlcposited. On such deposit, the appcl i nt is t:nLilied to *,iLhdra* thc said amount 'rrithout furnishing i:.,.. scctLrit-.,. Ncr l\'liscellancor.-ts petitior-rs, pending if any, in 1f rs .rppeal, shall st:u'rd closed SD/- A.H. i.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSiI JTANT REGISTRAR ! 6 i/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -Cum.. .XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4 Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.Nos.520 & 326 OF 2021 ( afiirt=;i ,c ( 1Ii ilt tD, :S iSr)tTi- -}. .,\, DISMISSING THE MACMA No.520 OF 20 21 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.3I,,6 OF 2021 n \p IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 520 & 326 OF 2021 M,A.C.M.A.No. 520 ot 2021 Between: Shriram General lnsurance Co.Ltd, Rep. by Legal Manager, H.No.3-6-517, 4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcade, Street No.6. Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. Appella nURespon dent No.2 AND

1. A.Laxmi Ratnakumari , Ratnakumari, Wo. Sreeram IVlurthy, Age 53 years, Occ. Tailor, R/o Plot No.29, LIC Colony, West Marredpally, Secunderabad. ...Respondent /Petitioner

2. Mujib Sab, S/o. Allauddin Masuldar, Age Major. occ Business, R/o.1 76. Mirakhal, H.No.1 Ring Road 96, Hilalapur, Humnabad Taluq, Brdar District, Karnataka State (Owner of the Lorry Bearing No.AP13X2720). ...ResPondenUResPondent No. 1 Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No . 326 ot 2021 Between: A. Laxmi Ratnakumari alias Ratnakumari, Aged. 58 Years, Occ. Tailor' R/o Plot No.29, LIC Colony, West Maredpally, Secunderabad ...APPellant AND -*F

1. Mujib Sab, S/o A

2. The Shriram Genr [j,j#*,rx jdfl1lxH{itll{,r:E:#trs*?!:iii?ira,'u,',s?;,r:l ,,a,, Jg" ; ii ill-i, :d_1 I ?. xlf; ia"f ?[? ?.?; rr,ll,l"^* I:f t, ox i rs D, v, s i o n a, i [",?#: f , I r: :x ? itr q,:t ;,],]#;,i B# jJ[%{ffi1l i i ;,o.,,,*'* ", Appear fired Under sectinn 17.1 ^c ^r^, and decree in M V o ,li""';.1':,":J]"'J;ffff ::;;i,',":T;:,,,:"":,,1"J Chairman JVlotor Accident CIaims Tribunal _Cum_X) I rruurrar -uum-XXV Additior: I chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad "'Respondents This appeal comrr grounds of appeal, ,n.'n material papers in ,n sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar ,e and Respondent No 2 it":,t"":.t:: ln" :;:; ru;::,::.ji"; MACMA.No 32 6 of 2O?l on for hearing' upon perusing tlt Memorandum of J'd9t"nt and Decree of the Lorr:r court and the appeal and upon hearing t I : arguments of appellant in MACAI \ No 520 or 2021 J;:l;lr,#:,il,"#T: ,:T: ;*: espondent in MACMA.No.S44 ot 20.,: and eppeilant in The Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I That the Motor Acc , dismissed il;"'fi8ifi fj,{ry,:;"i3!?T;je"e"?l Nr 520 or zo21 ,s ;;o; ",,;;., iili,_6i J,:.?""0, H, : ?[,il],,d,.,1 ^#i[l :?rolX" the Chairman Motor Accrdent Ctaims Tribun: InSt lrogg_ gity civir c*n, irra."_;;.f'1t^ll!:,!al-cum-XX\ Additionat chrer n, ri os oo6, io *,r,lI o#loii,i,:;.;di::Hi!_^lt, .:,. r"il; ;;;; trom the date of clairn perrron trir realization. lterest @ ' su pu,- "nnm

3. That However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. 4. That respondents are accrued interest within l':"^:l:9 to deposit the c copy or tn s JJJ;;;if"i:Hiflffi*THl1?T"r{iii :,"[:J,;l ]i':

5. That on such deposit. *",^^^,1^.,: :,:":-rlanvalrea:/deposited. without furnishirn ,.r r}urniipellant is entitled to withdraw t e said amount .\E4:.- To, b 7 That save as aforesaid, the other respects. ;n;- " '' '= decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. 'o^fsl8foo*YTf8,tT[t[ G SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// , , +[t"t3""J,Jcivil I1,"_9n:iiran Motor Accrdent Claims Tribunat -c court Hyderabad. -.utn-XXV Additional chief \\,BiPSI, HIGH COURT DATED:1810712025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.S20 & 326 OF 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA No.520 OF 2,,')21 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA No.:126 OF 2021 t,\ , .\."'