High Court · 2025

Judgment

I .1 THE HON'BLE SRI JIISTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1542 of 2O14 JUDGMENT: The appellant/claimant/petitioner fiIed the present appeal under Section L73 of lvI.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairmal, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Ct i"f Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.1550 of 2OLt, dated 04.12-2A13, seeking compensation o'f Rs. 5,OO,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident that occurred on

29.O3.2011.

2. For convenience, the parties yill be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant/claimant earlier fited M.V.O.P.No.1550 of 2OL1 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in an accident. It is contended that on

29.O3.2O11, at about O6:15 FM, the petitioner was proceeding on cycle towards his house after purchasing vegetables on reaching near Alfa bakely, the driver of one DCM van bearing No.AP 28 TC ll29 came from I.S. Sadan side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, dashed the cycle of the \-- \ I ; i i I t I , I, t l t ,i I ,l I i I I I I I 2 I minor petitioner, resulting which the petitironer fell on road and received grievous frachrre injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Owaisi Hospital and was admitted as inpatient'for treatment. The petitioner was studying 4th class at the time of accident and was a brilliant and clever and used to stand in l"t rank in his class. The appellant/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.5,0O,0OOl- as comp€nsation for the injuries sustained by him under various heads.

4. The Police, Santoshnagar registered a case in Crime No.56 of 2011 against the driver of offending vehicle. The appellant/claimant claimed an amount of Rs.5,OO,OOO/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by appellant / clairn antunder various heads.

5. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal, was that the minor petiti,oner sustained permanent disability at the very tender age of 9 years and also lost one academic year education. His parents are suffering with great pain and mental agony and tJle petitioner's father constrained to accompany him fur all those days by leaving his business of POP manufacturing and interior decoration, resutting in loss of , :,. income and his business is badly affected and prayed the ,, Tribunal to award just compensation. / 2 e,? € n

6. Respondent No.l-owner of ttre crime vehicle remained 3 exparte. Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed counter- alfrdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition and submitted ttrat the petition filed under Sections 166 and 163-A and l4O of M.V Act, 1988 is not maintainable as per law. The policy number mentioned by the petitioner in the claim petition is subjected to confirmation from the policy issuing of the respondent company. The respondent Company is not aware of the criminal case proceedings in Crime No.S6 of 2Ol I of Police Station, Shadnagar and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal franed the following issues which reads as under: i) Wether tle pleaded orcident dated 29.O3.2O11 l:rcls occurred ou.ting to the ra.sh and negligent driutng of tle diuer of DCM uan bearhg No.Ap28TC 1129 and uthether the petitioner has sustaied griermts injuries in the said accident? ii) Whether tle crime uehicle No.Ap2B rc 1Dg was owned bg the first respond.ent and insured with seand respondent as on the date of orcident and utether tle petitioner is entitled for ompensatbn if so to wlnt quantum and what is the lia!!litg:[t*e respond.ents? iii) To what reliej? 4

8. To prove the petitioners' case, pWs.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.Al to A8. Ex.Bl-copy of the insurance policy was marked on behaHof respondents. 9- After considering the material on record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunar alrowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.1,31,OOO/- along with interest@ 7.So/oper annum.

10. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learr.red rribunal, the present appeal is , . :,,: filed on the ground that the injured was studying 4trr class at the time of accident and sustained 4oolo disability but the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount for pain and suffering, transport. Th; minor petitioner sustained avulsion injury to left thigh, bleeding injuries to left side tesricle, displacement of skin on left and also undergone for surgeries for twice and the said injuries are grievous in nature. As per Ex.A6, A3 to A7 and A9, petitioner spent huge amounts for medical bilts and hospitat q(penses and the learned Tribunal has not awarded just and fair cornpensation amount under other heads.

11. Heard Sri C.lyl.Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant/petition", for the respondents. Perrrsed the material on record. -Td Mr.T.Mahendar Rao, learned counsel '/ a l i: l, t : I i I I ! t I i a

12. Admittedly, he was admitted in the hospital on 5

29.O3.2O1L and was discharged on O8.04.2O11 and he was readmitted on 15. 11.2011. The learned Tribunal has taken the disability of the petition er at 4OVo. the evidence of P.W.2 and the annual income was taken as Rs.15,0OO/- per annum. There is no dispute regarding the income which is applied by the learned Tribunal and so also the age of the injured and it appears from the findings grven by the learned tribunal at para No.l5 in the order that learned Ttibunal has considered entire material placed on record and appears to be on proper lines and has rightly taken the disability and income at Rs. I 5,OOO/ - per annum and also tlee relevant multiplier. This Court is of the opinion that there is no error conmitted by the learned Tribunal. The leanred Tribunal has awarded Rs.1O,OOO/- towards pain and sufferance, but this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has ignored ttre fact and ground reality that the injured being aged 9 years, the parents would have suffered shock and pain and suffering due to the accident and injuries sustained by the minor child and it is also cannot be ignored that all the days when petitioner was admitted in hospital, the parents would have accompanied him in denying the days, thereby they have lost their income and not only causing the loss of income to the parents and also thd pain and mentally or physi,rcalty sufferance which cannot be 6 \ \ ignored, while awarding the compensation. Hence, for the said reasons, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for the compensation und.er pain and sufferance more than, what learned Tribunal has awarded and the said amount i.e., Rs.1O,OOO/- cuur be increased. to Rs.6O,OOO/- which includes the compensation which is already granted by the learned Tribunal i.e., Rs.1O,OOO/- + Rs.SO,OOOl- = Rs.6O,0OOl- so also the transportation charges in which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.l,OOO/-. The petitioner might have taken the transport of any vehicle and as they might have visited hospitals for a certain period of time in intervals and as per the record it shows that petitioner was admitted in hospital for twice, as such the same has to be enhanced. and an amount of Rs.S,OOOl- in place of Rs.1,OOO/- is awarded under the head of transportation. The learned Tribunal has also lost sight in respect of the compensation under the head extra nourishment and an amount of Rs.S,OOOl- would be proper and reasonable under the said head and Rs.S,OOO/- towards attendant charges.

13. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record, I am of the opinion that tJ:e petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference. / a 7 IIead Amount arrlved at by the ffbunal Medical Pain and to Hospital Extra N Attendant Total Rs. 90,OO0/_ I Rs. l0,o0o/- Rs.1,O0O/- Rs 1,31,000/_ arrlved at by thts Court Rs.9O,OOO/- Rs.3O,OOO /- Rs.5 ,ooo I Rs.1 ,gS,OOOt- 14' Accordingly, the M.A...M.A is allowed in part, enhancing tlre compensation from Rs.l,3 I,OOO/_ to Rs.lrgSrOOO/_ (Rupees one Lakh Ninety Five Thousand onlyr with the interest of 7.5 o/o p.o.. on the enhanced amount from t]'e date of petition tilr the date of rcaTization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs a'd interest after grving due credit to the amount alread.y deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall sta'd //TRUE COPYII SD/. T'I. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFTCER \ To, I H.!:3i[I 3?;, l'.'.,ii t;;,'ff:;,?5;."s 2' One CC to sri- c- MOHAN irnnxnsu, Advocate topucr. MAHENDER RAo: l;;;"t" icieucl ' rrib u n a 'cu l&. 1, ff:33 t""i',:", TTS/GR m -X I V Add r c h ier J ud se, s\ ,o C) t * 1HES 'i ? l![ ;'rfi Jr HIGH COURT DATED: 1310612025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1542 ot 2O14 MACMA IS ALLOWED 1 \\ )L r0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONOA 1 n MoM. Yaseen, S/o. Mohd. Naseeruddin, aged: 9 years, 4th Class Student, being Minor represented by his father Mohd. Naseeruddin, S/o. Late Qutubuddin, Occ: Business, No 17-1-182168, Bhanu Nagar, Madannapet, Hyderabad. '1. Khadeer Qureshi Mohd @ MD. Qadeer, S/o. Md. Khaja Miya, AGE: Owner of DCM Van bearing No. AP 28 TC 1 '129, R/o 3-5-136/1, Nagar, Kattedan, R.R.Dist at Hyderabad. Major, Reddy

2. Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, Represented by its Manage, lV Floor,,4-1-327 lo 337, Sardar Plaza, Near GPO, AbirJs, Hyderabad. Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree Made in M.V.O.P.No.1550 of 2011 dated 4l12l2}1g on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accirlent Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlv Addl. Chief Judge, (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearang and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C. MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. T. MAHENDER RAO, Advocale for the Respondent and of the Respondent No.2 not appeared either in person or by Advocate. That Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed; 2. The compensation from Rs.1,31,0001 to Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand only) with the interest ot 7 .5o/o p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization; 1 To,

3. The respondents is direc'ted 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 mohths ftom the receipt of a copy of this Judgment; , 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respec{s; and

5. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal SECTION OFFICER (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xtv Addl. Chief Judge, t. Two CD Copies W TTS/GR € €4 HIGH COURT DATED: 1310G12025 DECREE MACMA.No.1542 ot 2014 MACMA IS ALLOWED 1 15 t0