The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Both these appeals arise out of Order and Decree dated

26.02.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, Citl'Civil Court, I'{vderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as thcv u'ere arraled belore the Tribunal.

3. Thc casc of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on

08.12.2011 at about 5:3O p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on tris nrotor bikt' bcaring No.TS-O8-EA-3604 and when he reached near Mccna Hospit:rl, Tukaram Gate, Secunderabad, driver of one lorry bc;.rring No.At'-28-V-2143 driven by its driver in a rash and negligcnt manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioncr, irs a rt:sult of u,hich he fell down and sustained fracture injurrt s. Imnrc'dizrt,.'h hc was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where hc underwent inpatient treatment. The petitione r sullcrcd a lot duc to thc injuries and was bedridden and thar he is.rg,c<l 32 rcars and lost his future amenities. Thus, he claimecl a compcnszrtion oi Rs.2O,O0,000/- I 2 ETD,] MACMA No.543 147 2021 e 4l The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the occurrence of the accident and also averments of the petition with regard to the age, avocation and income of the petitioner and also with regard to medical expenditure.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:- 1 2 Whether the injuies sustained bg J. Noresh is Motor Accident occurred on 08.12.2O14 due to rash and negligent diang of diuers of Cime uehicle lorry bearing NI.AP-28-V- 2143? Wllether petitioner is entitled to compe-Lsation ? If so, hnw much and from wtam?

3. To what relieP

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got cxamined PW t to 4 and got marked Exs.Al to A10 and Xl to X8. On behalf of the respondents, RWI was examin€d, and got marked Ex.B1.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.3,05,0O0/- . Aggrieved by the said ordcr and decrec, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company.

9. Heard Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel lor the appellant/ I nsurance Company and Sri P. Chandramouli, Iearned coirrsel for the respondents. 2/ l ETD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021

10. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that the lnsurance Company is not at all liable to pay compensation as the driver of the lorry was not holding valid driving license as on the date of the accident. He further contended that the Tribunal has granted huge compensation under various heads. He further contended that the petition itself is bad for non- joinder of the owner and insurer of the motor bike, as the said vehicle was also involved in the said accident. He therefore prayed to set aside the order and decree passed by the Tribunal.

11. The learned counsel fcrr the claimants on the other hand has argued that the Tribunal failed to consider the earnings of the injured-petitioner and that it has not awarded future prospects and the Tribunal failed to observe that the claimant was terminated from empkx'ment follorl,ing the injuries sustained in the accident. He furthcr arqut:d that the disability sustained by the petitioner is 25o,i, q'hich is proved by the evidence of PW3, but ttre Tribunal has not considcred the same. Therefore, he prayed to enhance the compt-nsation bv considering all the aspects. L2. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the points for determlnation : - \ \

1. Whether the clnuer of the lorry beanng No.AP-28-V-2143 urqs rnt holdrrrg unlLtl dnLttrg licertse as 04 the date of thE arcident? If so, Luhether tlp lnsrtrotLc{- Conq)etLy ts tot liable lo paA any ampensation. ETD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021 I

2. Whether the compensation granted bg the Tibunal is just and reasonable? 3 . Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need ang interference?

4. To uthat relieJ? 13 Point No.1: a) The contention of the learned counsel for the lnsurance Company is that the driver of the lorry bearing No.TS-08-EA-3604 did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. To prove their contention, they have not filed any document. RWI was examined and the Policy was marked through his evidence under Ex.B l. b) A perusal of charge sheet reveals that the accused-driver is charged under Section 338 of Indian Penal Code, but there is no charge under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The contents of the charge sheet do not reveal that he did not possess any driving liccnse- Thcre is no other evidence put forth by the rcspondents in proof of their contention. Therefore it is held that the said contention of the Insurance Company is untenable and hence, it is held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. Point No. L is ansrvered accordingly. I I I I t, ETD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021, 5

14. Point No.2:- a) The claimant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. The petitioner is stated to have sustained fracture injuries due to the accident. [n support of his case, he got examined himself as [)Wl and also got examined PW3/Dr.S. Narsingh Rao who is a Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon at Padmaja Hospital, Champapet, Hyderabad. His evidence reveals that the petitioner underrrvent treatment in his Hospital for Grade{I B open fracture of both bones of left leg and that he was treated for the same in his hospitat. b) Ex.A9 is the X-Ray film issued by their hospital. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary ol (iandhi l{ospital. It is disclosed from the record that the pcr-itioner undcrwcnt treatment at Gandhi Hospital. However, thc evidcnce of PW3 rcveals that he approached PW3 on 05.1O.20 l6 for issuance oi disability certificate. So on his physical examination and on examining the X-ray film under Ex.A9, PW3 has issued Ex.A6/ Disabilitl, Certilicate disclosing 25olo disability which is partial and permanent in nature. c) A perusal of Ex.A3 tl.re MLC issucd by Gandhi Hospital reveals that the petitioner sustained grievous injury in Road Traffic I I Accident and that he w:rs admirted on 08. l2.2ol4 and was disc'harged on 02.01.2015. Ex.A4 is thc Discharge Card issued by 1:, I I I ETD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021 \: Gandhi Hospital which also reveals the said fact of his inpatient treatment from O8.12.2014 to 02.01.2O15 and that he was op€rated on 20.12.2014 for his fracture in both bones of left leg. He was advised with medication at the time of discharge and was asked to come for a review. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by PW2 which shows 25% partial permanent disability and his age is revealed as 34 years as per Ex.A6. With regard to the pain and suffering under went by the petitioner an amount of Rs.I,OOrOOO/- is awarded. Ex.A7 is the medical bill for Rs.300/-. He took inpatient treatment at Gandhi Hospital, which is free of cost. However, somc amount o[ incidental expenditure towards extra nourishment, attcndant charges and the transportation cannot be ignored. Almost one month he underwent treatment, so an amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- is awarded towards these charges. d) It is stated by thc pctitioner that he was working as a Teacher in Private School and was drawing Rs.23,000/- per month. It is asserted by thc petitioner that he was a very bright academician. In support of his statement, he has filed Ex.A8 the attested copy of Dcgrcc Certificate issued by University of Massachusets Boston showing that he obtained Master of Science Degree from the said Uniicrsity. / 7 ETD,I MACMA No.543 347 2021 e) The evidence of PW2 is adduced to prove the earnings of petitioner. PW2 is an Accountant in Secunderabad Public School. He stated in his chief examination that the petitioner was appointed as Physical Science Teacher in their School on

2.06.2014 and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,O00/- per month. After the petitioner suffered an accident, he was continuously absent and thus, their management has terminated his services on O1.04.2015. In his evidence Ex.Xl to X8 are marked. 0 In his cross examination PW2 has admitted that he has not filed any attendance register of the petitioner. He further admitted that their School Management has paid tu'o months salary to the petitioner after the accident. Thus, it is elicited from his evidence that the petitioner was terminated from services after the accident by paying two months salary. d Ex.X3 is the SSC Certificate of thc petitioner, Bx.X4 is tJre Memorandum of Marks of Intermediate Education, Ex.XS is the Degree Certificate issued by Nagarjr,rna University, showing that he completed his Degree of Bachek>r of Science. Ex.X6 is the Certificate issued by Osmania Univcrsity u,hich discloses that the petitioner cornpleted M.Sc in Computer Science. Ex.X7 is the L,etter of termination issued by Secunderabad public School regretting that he is terminated lrom employmenr u.irh immediate effect. The 8 ETD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021 said letter is dated O1.04.2015. The service certihcate filed under rE Ex.X8 discloses that the petitioner used to draw a gross salary of Rs.25,0OO/- and a net salary of Rs.23,O00/- after deduction. Thus, it is elicited that the petitioner was working as a Teacher in Secunderabd Public School and was terminated from the service after the accident. h) It is revealed from the evidence of PW2 that he was paid salary for two months initiall_y after the accident and aJter which they terminated his services from 01.O4.2O15. The nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner discloses that he suffered fracture of both bones of Ieft teg for which he must have taken about 6 months for thc injuries to hea[. Thus, he must have suffered loss earnings lor subsequcnt four months (4 x 25 = 1,0O,O00) is awarded under the head Ioss of earnings. 0 With regard to loss ol hrture c.rrnings, as per Ex.A6 he sustained 25% disabilitl due to the said fracture which is permanent partial in nature u'hich is scaled down to 5%o in relation to whole body and the same is taken as loss of future earnings to the petitioner. As on the datc o[ thc accident, he must have been 23 years as he is shown to be 26 years in Ex.A6 dated O5.10.2016. Therefore (1O,OO0 +25000)= 35,000 xl2 =4,2O,OO0 x 5olo x 16 =3r36rO(X) is awarded under thc head loss of future carnings. l c' I // fiD,J MACMA No.543 347 2021 9 J) tn all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amourlts: sI. No. 2 3 4 Name of the heads Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Compensation of loss of earnings (past four months 25,oQo: a)) Loss of future earnings due to disability Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses Total Awarded by this Court Rs I,Oo,0o0 /- 1,0o,00o/- 3,36,0O0/- 3o,0oo/- s,66,OOO/- k) Thus, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,66,0O0/- u.hich woutd be just and reasonable. Therefore, the compensation granted by thc Tribunal is Rs.3,05,000/- which is enhancecl to Rs.5,66,00O/-. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.S: In view ol the findings arrived at Pojnt Nos. I ancl 2 it is opined that the order and decree of the Tribunal needs to be modified enhancing the compensation from 3,05,000/ - to L \ s,66,o00/-. Pornt No.3 is answered accordingly I ? 10

16. Point r\Io.4:- ETD,,J MACMA No.543 347 2021 In the result, appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed and appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed, Order and Decree dated 26.a2.2O2 I in M.V-O.l).No.39 oi 20I5 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from 3,05,000/- to 5,66,00O/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @) 7.s%o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. owcver, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited, ii anr'. The rcspondent No.2 is directed to deposit the compcnsation amount rvith accrued interest within a period of two months from thc date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting t hc ilrnount if any already deposited. On such deposit, thc appcllant is cntitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishir-rg anl sccurity. Miscellaneous petitions, pcnding if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/- N.SRIHARI EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER

1. Ttre Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Ch'tef ! To, Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar. Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Pallati Chandramouli, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies KVR/NVB Y? e HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.543 o12021 9r irt+ of -rort STATT ut tts ls o o I '/- () :r-- ., hE(: eNt DISMISSING THE MACMA.NO.s43 OF 2021 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.N0.347 OF 2021 I C .-t((d K* IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NOs.543 & 347 OF 2021 Between: Shiram General lnsurance Coltd., Rep. by its Legal Manager, No.3-6-517, Flat No.401 and 403, 4th Floor, Sai Datta Arcase, Street No.6, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad ..Sole Appellant in MACMA 543 ot 2021& Second Respondent in MACMA.No.347 ot 2021 AND '1 . J.Naresh and another, S/o. Seshagiri Rao, Age 32 years, Occ. Present Nil (Previsouly Wroking as Teacher in Secunderabad Public School, Secunderabad), R/o H.No.12-1 -39121D, Ganesh Nagar, Lalapet, Secunderabad. . ..Respondent No.1 in MACM A 543 of 2o21 & sole Appella::Jlr^1f?# .

2. Rama Devi Kodiyala, Wo. Srihariari Rao, Age Major, Occ. Driver, R/o.H No.1 1-2. Plot No.15, Sri Sai Enclave, ECIL, Hyderabad (Owner of Lorry bearing No AP29V2143). ...Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.543 ol2021 & Respondent No.1 in MACMA.No.347 ot 2021. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 26-02-2021 made in M.V.O.P.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeat 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 arguments of Sri K.Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the l l I I I / / I I Appellant in MACMA.No.543 ol 2021 & Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.347 ot 2021 and Sri P.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for respondent No.'l in MACMA.No.S43 of 2021 & Sole Appellant in MACMA.No.347 of 2021 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed in MACMA.No.143 of 2021and appeal partly allowed in MACMA .No.347 ol 2021 by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,05,000/- to 5,66,0001.

2. That the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the lnterest for the period of delay if any be and hereby is forfeited. 4. That the respondent No.2 be and hereby is directed to deposlt 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 already deposited.

5. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court Shall stands confirmed in all other respects, and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ,TRUE COPY// \ sD/- N.SR|HAR| DEPUTY REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident C Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. Two CD Copies laims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief KVRAIVB k HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 DECREE MACMA.No.543 ot 2021 d_ z\+ o€:orl DISMISSING THE MACMA.NO.s43 OF 2021 AND PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA.NO.347 OF 2021 k-dd Yw