The High Court · 2025

Judgment

ThisM.A.C.M.A.isfiledunderSectionlT3oftheMotorVehicles Act,1988b5,theappellant/claimantaggrievedbytheAwardanddecree dated23.o|.2o2opassedinM.V.o.P.No.273of2o16bytheChairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Principai District Judge' short, the Tribunal') seeking compensation of Nalgonda, (for Rs.4,O0,Oo()l-fortheinjuriessustained'bythepetitionerinamotor vehicle accid'ent that took place on 14'03 '2016'

2.Thebrieffactsoftheca'searethatappellant/claimantfiled M.V.O.P.N.r.273of2C]6und'erSection166(1)(a)oftheM.V.Act,1988 seeking cf,mpensation for the injuries received ln a motor vehicle accident eilleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by theScorpiocarbearingNo.MH16BMlTl5.Itiscontendedthaton |4.03.20].6,thepetitionerandSomeoth.ersweretravellinginanAuto bearing No.AP 24 TC l4l7 from Thirumalagiri Viliage to imampet Village and wherr. the auto reached the outskirts of Vallabhapuram Village' the ..r' ) t - 'it-' ;r --I 2 't .|glrm,J MACMA No.sla oJ 2O2O driver of Scorpio Car bearing No.MH 16 BM 17 Ls c€une in high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto from back side, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture of left femur, fracture of left leg hip joint, fracture of left shoulder, head injury and grievous injuries on all over the body. The petitioner was immediately taken to Government Area Hospital, Suryapet, from there he was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, Narketpally, wherein he underwent treatment as in patient for about fifteen days i.e., from 15.03.2016 to 30.03.2016. After the discharge from hospital, he is continuing treatment in private hospitals and incurred huge amounts towards medical expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.10,0OO/- a mason and due to the said accident, he was unable to do his day to day work as he became permanently disabled, he could not move frorrl bed. Basing on a complaint, crime No.44 of 2OL6 was. registered for the offence punishable undir Section 338 of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending vehicle and after due investigation, police have filed charge sheet vide C.C.No.520 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of

First Class Suryapet. -. ') 3 ,\rlrR'J MACMA No.57a of 2O2o

3. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondent No.l the driver of the crime vehicle and Respondent No.3 added as owner-cum-driver of auto were remaint:d exparte. The respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Linrited filed their counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and and further contended th.at the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed t,r dismiss the claim petition.

4. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, tht: learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: "i) Whe'ther the claimant sustatned injuries due to rash and" negligent driuing of the Scorpio bearing No.MH 16 BM 1715 bg its ct.riuer? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, and if so, fo what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?" '

5. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the \T1 4 - Jl,I\m,J MACMA I.Io-Sla oJ 2O2O learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2r43r36o I - along with interest @ 9%o per €rnnum.

6. .Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the following ground among other grounds that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider that the petitioner sustained grievous injuries with fractures and that he has incurred more than Rs.4,00,000/- and was in hospital for more than fifteen days as inpatient. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted. Rs.4,OO,O OO / - with interest and also the loss of earning, medical bills and transportation charges. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability assessed by PWs 2 & 3 and the disability certificate i.e., Ex.A8 issued by PW3 who is a Doctor/Member of the Medical Board assessing the disability at 4Ooh. The learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- as the petitioner was a mason and was earning Rs.10,000/- but the learned Tribunal has taken only Rs.8,000/-. a reasonable amount towards pain and sufferance. The learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.4O,O00/- towards pain and sufferance. Though the petitioner has placed the relevant certificates \ ) 5 NIVR,J MACMA lilo.Sla oJ 2O2O issued by the doctors that the petitioner has occurred huge arnounts towards medical expenses.

07. Heard Srt C.Mohan Pro,kash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ch.Venkata Naragantct, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Peruse,l the material on record

08. Admittr:dly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award pass,:d by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the peti.tioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, tc, what extent? Point No.1 09. Admittedly, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant having been unsatisfied with the compens.ation awarded by the iearned Tribunal i,e., Rs.2,43,360 /- as against the claim of the appellant/claimant i.e.. Rs.4,OO,OOO/-. Admittedly, there is no dispute , regarding the nature of accident and the involvement of the said Scorpio Car and there is also no dispute with the fact that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. It is also not in dispute that the said 6 JVIWJ MACMA No.51a of 2O2O accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Scorpio Car. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- which the petitioner has claimed, but the learned Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner @ Rs.8,000/- as the petitioner was a mason and was earning Rs.10,000/-.

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has placed relevant material to show that the petitioner was a mason by examining himself as PW- 1. Though the learned Tribunal having considered that the petitioner was a mason but the learned Tribunal did not chose to consider the income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/-, but taken as Rs.S,0oo/-. It is also held that there is no evidence placed in respect of wage slips and the'tearned Tribunal considering the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act and also the Rules governing therein and has taken the income of the petitioner @ Rs.8,0O0 /- pe, month and assessed the compensation. 1 1. The other ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal did not considered the 25o/o of the future 7 N'VR,J MACMA I{o.5rA ol 2O2O prospects which has to be added to the income of the petitioner. This Court having taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.8,000/- and adding 25o/o of the income towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Corporation Vs. Pranay Sethit which is relevant to the age group of 40-lio years. The actual income of the petitioner would be Rs.10,O0O f - ;'er month. Taking the said income, this Court would like to venture for reassessment of compensation. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner sustained 4Oo/o disability, and the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the same as 4Oo/o. It is also the grieva.nce of the petitioner that the learned Tribunal ought not to have deducted l/3,a towards personal exp€nses which is not prescribed under the cases of injuries, in the opinion o[this Court, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking 7/3,a of the income: towards personal expenses is the error Sommitted by the learned Tribunal and the income of the petitioner would be Rs.8,0 oo /- + Rs,20OO/- (t5%l = Rs.10,0OO/- x 12 = |,2O,OOO/-. The relevant multiplier fo.: the age group of 40-45 years, taking the age of the petitioner @ 43 y.3rl per the medical report, it shows that the "" L lzott AACI 27oo (sc)). Y B IVAR,J MACMA l,to.St8 oj 2O2O petitioner's age is 42 to 43 and as per the aflidavit filed before this court, the age of the petitioner is shown as 40 years, as such the age of the petitioner can be taken in betwe en 41 to 45 years and the relevant multiplier applicable would be 14. Taking the relevant multiplie r @ 14 x 12000 = 16,80,00 O - 40% (6,72,0001 = 10,0g,000. After taking the disability, the petitioner is entitled for loss of future income = 10,0g,000. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.10,og,ooo/- towards loss of future income. 12' The only dispute raised by the appellant before this Court is only two aspects i.e., non-consideration of 2so/o of future prospects and deducting L/gra of income towards personal expenses and as the said aspects has been answered and further taking into the consideration of the assessment made by this court, the petitionel i., "tt would be entitled for compensation of Rs.1o,g6,0o0/- including the amounts which are awarded by the learned Tribunal i.e., loss of income during treatment Rs.8,Ooo/-, loss of amenities Rs.3o,o00/- and pain and sufferance Rs.4O,O OO / -. /. 9 AII'R,J IIACMA No.57a ol2O2O

13. C)n ove:rall re-aporeciation of the pleadings, material on record and submissions, made by both sides, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancernent of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Head Amount arrived at by the Tribunal_ Amount arrived at by this Court Loss of future income Loss of lncome during treatment Loss rf amenities Pain {k sufferance Rs.1,65,360/- Rs.8,OO0/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.4O,00O/- Rs.1O,O8,OOO/- Rs.8,0OO/- Rs.30,000/- Rs.40,OOO/- Total Rs.2,43,360/- Rs.1O,86,000/-

14. By considering the observation of Hon'ble Apex court in Nagappa Vs.Gurudayal Singhz, the compensation can be awarded more than the claimed amount". Therefore, the appellant/ctaimant is entitlect to the enhanced (:ompensation of Rs.10,86,000/- as against the awarded amount of F1s.2,43,360 /- by the learned Tribunal. \ \

15. Consi<lering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal \ \ has rightly ,lwarded the rate of interest at 9o/o per annum and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion 2 zooz (2) scc 2t4 10 MVRJ UACMA No.578 ol 2O2O that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount.

16. Hence, the claimants are entitled for an enhanced compensation of Rs.10,86,OOO/-. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,43,360/- to Rs.10,86,300/- with interest at the rate @ 9 o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of reaJization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the petitioner is directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.

17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/- . PONNA KRISHNA ANT REGI ,/TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- - Principal District Judge at Nalgonda. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri. C. Mohan Prakash, Advocate tOpUCI 3. One CC to Sri. Ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies B)- AS/gh I .ir' 1HE SIE 2 7 JAll 20?[ ,'i) .), Fa.tC'"tt'i o o ( * [ 2 DRAFTS] , HIGH COUIRT DATED:07/08/2025 JUDGMET\IT+DECREE MACMA.No.S1a ot 2O2O ALLOW]NG THE MACMA WTHOUT'COSTS. v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT [ 3443 ] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCI DENT CIV]L MISCELLAN EOUS APPEAL NO: 518 OF 2020 Between: ljjt,:!:igJ.:q:Ef,..S/o. Narsaiah,.as_ed 40 years, Occ. Mason,R/o. tmampet vrflage ot suryapet Mandar, Nargonda District. presenfly residing at Gandhi nagar locality, Nalgonda Town. AND ...APPELLANT

1. Nalawade Ashok Dattatra.lr, S/o. Dattakay, aged. Major, Occ. Business, R/o. - ryP-^gtqgiatg^aon, Tatuq-Karjat, Diskict. Ahrn'eanagai., Maharasira Statb,' Pin.414403 (owner cum drivi:r of the scorpio ueaiing'No.tuFi-tG-eM:i7isl 2. United lndia lnsurance Company L!{., Rggional Officer, T.p.Hub, ll Floor, - ' Church Buitding, posnett Bh'ava'n, Ti6k R;ad, Rama k6ti, uyOJri6Jd.

3. .l?mpala Praveen, S/o_ Babu Rao , aged. 19 years, Occ. Owner cum Driver of " -' The Aulo bearing No.Ap-24-TC-141i, R/o. lmampet Villaoe. Survaoef Mandar' quy€pet District. (Added as_p_roposed R'esponadnt tto.i a's per the orders in l.A.No.189 of 2016, Dated. 20_d4_2018). , ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicres Act, 1988 against the order and decree in M.V.o.P.No. 273 ot 2o16 dated. 23-01-2020 on thelle of the court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- principal 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 ihe material pipers in the'6ase and upon hearing the arguments of sri. c. Mohan prakash, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the Responoent woz ana none appeared for the respondent No.1 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs. 2,43,360/_ to Rs. 10,g6,300/_ with interest at the rate @9o/op.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the drrte of realizationa;

2. That ther respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs ard interest after giving due credit to the amount arready deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 3' 'That the however, the petitioner is directed to pay the Deficit court Fee on the enhance'r amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgmenl:; 4' That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree ofthe Tribunar shafi stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That then-. shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- P. PONNA KR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER 1 ' The chai'man, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- - principdr District Judge at l,lalgonda. (With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies I To, AS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0710812025 DECREE MACMA.No.S18 ot 2020 ALLOWING TF.IE MACMA WITHOUT COSiTS. \ ,