The High Court · 2025

Order

I i l: I ! 4 t tI I f -i { J * T I I M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 OF 2OIS JUDGMENT: Dissatisfied with the quantrrm of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- cum - XIII Additional chief Judge (Fast Track court), city civil court at Hyderabad, (for short, the Tribunal) passed in M.v.o.p.No.26og of 2o11, dated 30.05.2013, the claimant has filed the present Appeal seeking fcrr enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience; the parties hr:reinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3- The brief facts of the case as can be seen frc,m the record are that on 14.08. 2oll at about 2o:oo hours while the claimant was proceeding to his residence after attending his duties at Hyderabad city Police commissioner oflice on his motorcycle and when he was passing DGeA Road towards mrarket yard of Kharkhan;a, ?t that time a car of Honda city made bearing No. AP I o AA 8o4g carRe in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed the claimant, as a result, he fell down .rnd susrarned crush injury to right leg, injury to left leg, head injury, nasal bone injury and other multiple injuries all over the bod-v. Immediatery, the petitioner was shifted to yoshodha 2 MCPJ MrcM.xo.2224 of 20r3 Hospital, Secunderabad from there he was shifted to NIMS Hospital and for further treatment he was referred to Deccan Hospital, Somqiiguda, Hyderabad, wherein he underwent surgery for amputation and implant of artificial limb and spent Rs.SO,0OO/- apart from availing benefits under Arogra Bhadrath Scheme'. Thereafter, he is continuing his follow up treatment under and specialists in private hospital.

4. Based on the information received, Police Kharkhana, registered a case in First Information Report (FIR) No. 157/2O11 under Section 337 of Indian Penal Code, 1806 against the driver of Honda City Car bearing No.AP.1O.AA.8O49 and after investigation filed charge sheet.

5. According to the claimant, he was aged about 27 years at the time of accident and he was a working as LGS in Hyderabad City Police Commissionerate Office and use to earn Rs. l4,OOOl- per month. Due to the said accident he suffered permanent disability. Therefore, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.20,O0,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakh) under Section L66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. | &,2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle bearing No.AP.10.AA.8O49 jointly and severally, / .)l i : ! i ?: t 1 i i 1; :t I t 3 MGPJ I{ACMANo.2224 of20l3 for the injuries and disability suffered by him under various heads.

6. The respondent No.l was set eryarte, however, the respondent No.2 has filed counter denyrng the manner of accident, injuries sustained, dge , avocation and income of the claimanl-. Respondent No. 2 assailed. its liabitity to pay compensation on the grounds that crime vehicle is not insured with it and prayed to dismiss the claim applicatiorr.

7. Based on the rival contentions, the Triburral has framed the folloling three issues. 4 ii) Wtether tle pleoded a@ident had orcurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner Mohd". Moin Pastu due to tlrc rash and negligent dtiuing of tlrc motor Vehicle (Honda Citg Car beaing registration No. AP 10 AA 8049)bg its diuer? WhetLrcr the petitioner xs erfiitled to anA compensation and, if so, at wlwt quantum and what is the liability of tle respond.ents? ii! To uthat relieJ?

8. Dtrring the course of trial, petitioner got examined himself as PW- t and also got examined PV/-2 (Abdul Hafrz:s), PW3 (Dr. G Ramcsh), PW4 (Md. Saleem) and got marked Exs.,A.l to A16. On behalf of respondent No.2, no oral evidence is adduced, ( E 4 MGPJ MAcmNo.2224 of 20r3 however, Ex.Bl copy of the insurance policy and Exs.X-l to X-3 were marked.

9. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, partly allowed the claim petition by awarding Rs.l3,5O,O00/- (Rupees Thirteen takhs and Fifty Thousand) with interest at 6%o per annum under various heads. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, tl:e claimant has preferred the present Appeal to enhance the compensation.

10. Heard both sides and perused the entire record including the grounds of Appeal. I t. Before going into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to note down some of the admitted facts. The respondent No.2 has not preferred any appeal against the impugned Award- There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the Tribunal by relying on Ex.AI (First Information Report) has answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 10 AA 8049 and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. There is also no dispute that the insurance policy under Ex.Bl was subsisting as on the date of the accident. /./ I I I i : 5 MGPJ XACli0tNo.222{ or2013 L2. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered that the claimant has sustained mu.ltiple grievous injuries and was shifted from place, where he met with. the accident and then to different hospitals in the cit5r for further treatment, however, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. t2,4481- towards transportation and extra nourishment charges, which is very meager.

13. It is evident from the record that there is no dispute that the clairnant sustained grievous injuries in the said vehicular accident which occurred at Kharkhana and from there the claimant was shifted to Yashodha Hospital and from there he was again shifted to NII{S Hospital, Hyderabad. Further, to provide better treatment he was then shifted to Deccan Hospital, Somzrjiguda, Hyderabad and in this regard to prove the same the claimant got examined PW3 i.e., the doctor, who providecl treatment to the claimant at Deccan Hospital. Though the petitioner has not adduced any bills issued towards ambulance expenses incurred by him, withourt the help of ambulance services, the claimant could not han,e been shifted from plerce of accident to the different hospitals llcr treatment to the petitioner. Apart from that the claimant is aLlso required to t \ \ ( 6 MCPJ MACMAT{o.2224 drorr take nutritious food and enerSr supplements to recover quickly and arso he will be required to attend the hospital for tr€atment subsequent to his discharge from Deccan Hospital. 14' For taking treatment by travering to an the above places, the claimant might have incurred considerable arnount towards transportation and he might have also incurred some amounts towards nutritious food supplements to recover quickry from the grievous injuries' Thus, viewed from any angle, awarding of Rs'12,448/- against the claim of the claimant for Rs.20 ,ooo/_ towards transportation charges and extra nourishment is on lesser side, more particularry considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner. Hence, this court is of the view that awarding Rs.2o,ooo/- towards transportation charges and extra nourishment would meet the ends ofjustice. 15' It is further contended by the appelrant that trre rearned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/_ under the head of medical expenditure. It is evident from the record that the appelrant has incurred Rs.50,o00/- towards medical expenses for treatment in Deccan Hospitar which is covered under "Arogra Bhadratha Scheme, provided by government' Therefore, any contribution paid for the said I t I 7 MGP.' MACM,INo.2224 of mt3 scheme cannot be brought under the heacr of medical expenditr-rre: However, the appellant has adduced Ex.A-2 to A-Z a bunch of medical reports to prove that he has incurred Rs.25,o47 /-and Ex.A-8 bunch of 11 medical bills of Rs.z,g5z/-. Hence, considering the above documentary evidence, this court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and reasonable to grant Rs.32,9O4/- towards medical expenditures.

16. The learned counsel for appeflant/claimant also contends that though the appellant has suffered grievous injury, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.S,ooo/-, which is meager and sought to enhance the amount. tt is evident from Exs.A-2 and A-10, which testify on the nature of injury suffered. Thus, considering the same, this court is of the consiclered opinion that the amount awarded under the head of grievous injury is meager. Hence, an amount of Rs.25,oo0/- is awarded towards grievous injury, which seems to be just and reason:rble. 17 - The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4T,o62/- towards purchase of three wheeler motorcycle. This court linds it reasonable and appropriate ro award Rs.4z,o62/- towards purchase of three wheeler motorcycle by considering the fact of amputation of limb of the petitioner. ( t .\ \ I I J 8 MGP.' MACMitNo.Z!24 of20lJ 18' As it is evident that due to said injury appenant was bedridden for three months and he might require an assistant to carry out his daily activities. However, the learned Tribunal did not award any amount towards attendant charges. Hence, this court is inclined to award Rs.lo,ooo/- towards attendant charges.

19. It is further contended by appenant that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the head of loss of amenities in life considering the facts and circumstance of the case as the appellant/claimant has suffered permanent disability and could not be in a position to enjoy life as earlier- Thus, considering the above fact and circumstances of the case, this court is of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granted towards loss of amenities. 20- The ncxr contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimanr is that the learned Tribunal failed to award future prospects- In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision of the Honourable supreme court in l[ew Ind.ia Assurance company Limited v. Gajender yadav and othersl, wherein future t (2OI8),1I Slrprenre Court Cases 63O i 9 MGPJ MACMANo.2224 of20l3 prospects @ 5oo/o was considered for amputation of left leg below knee. It is to be noted that future prospects carL be awarded when the accident results in permanent disabbment of the claimant. As per the pleadings of the petitioner/clzrimant before the Tribunal, it is evident that he underwent surgery for implant of artificial leg and also suffered functional disability of soo/o, which is permanent in nature. It is also t:vident from Ex.A-12 and A-14 that the appellant/claimant i:; working as LGS in Hyderabad police commissionerate oflice, thus, he is a public servant having permanent job. The learned Tribunal has taken monthly income of the appelrant as Rs. g,37g I - by re\ring upon Exs.A-12, X-1 and X-3 i.e., salary certi{-rcate and pay slips issued by the employer of the petitioner. Thus, the monthly income of the appellant is Rs.9,379/- per month r'Rs.9,379/- x L2l and the annuar income .f the appellarrt comes to Rs.1, L2,5481-. 2l- However, the learned Tribunal failed to co;esider future prospects in terms of the decision laid down b1. Honourable Apex court in National Insurance company Limited v. Pranay sethi and othersz. The appeilant w,as aged2z years at 2 20t7 ACJ 27AO t \ \ 10 MGPJ MACU[t{o.222,1 of ,ol-l the time of accident and was having permanent job. Further, due to the accident the petitioner may not get promotion in his upcoming career. Apart from that the petitioner is alleged to be working as driver as per the cause title and thus, the petiticiner may not be able to attend the duties of driver. Thus, the annual income of the appelrant/clairnant with 5o% of future prospects accordingly comes to Rs. t,6g,g22/_ [Rs.t,l2,S4g+ Rs.56,274]. 22' The learned Tribunal has rightly applied the relevant multiplier for the appellant/claimant age as ,rT interms of the judgment of the Honble Apex court in sartra verma v. Derhi Transport corporation3. Further, the Tribunal, on the basis of Ex.A-9 Disability certificate, rightly fixed the functional disability of the appellant/crairnant at soo/o. Hence, under the head of disability, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 14,34,987 / - [1,68,822 x LT x5oo/oJ. 23- The learned Tribunal awarded rate of interes t @ 60/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition tilr the date of realization However, as per the decision of the Honourabre Apex court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir singh and others+ 32009ACJ 1298 4 2013 ACJ l4O3 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 I 1+ 77 MCP.J MACMA.No.2224 of2013 this court is inclined to enhance the rate of inter.est granted by the learned Tribunar from 60/o per annum to 7.S,/oper annum. 24' In view of the foregoing discussion in the above paragraphs, this court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunar is required to be modified as appellant/claimant is entitred for the compensation under various heads, as follows: indicated above. Thus, in all, sl. No. Name of the head I 2 3 4 5

6. 7

8. Grievous Injury Nourishment charges Attendant Charges Extra Loss of earnings during treatment Pain and Sufferings Artifrcial Leg Disability [Rs.1,68,822 x l7x 5Oo/ol [,oss of Amenities Compensation entitled by the claimant Rs.25,OOO/- R s.20,OOO/- Rs.lO,OOO/- Rs. 48,832/ _ Rs l,o0,ooo/_ Rs. l,8O,OOO/ - Rs 14,34,997 /_ Rs. 50,0Oo/_ t t 9 For:3 Rs.47 ,062 / - Rs.19 ,15,991 /_ 25' The learned Tribunar ordered the petitioner to withdraw Rs'8'50'ooo/- anj directed r.hg. qsq"ining compe.nsation of Total .r\::\ t :,-j ,., a. )rJ- i' : i.. ;::. f 't$.t'r ti r1.." I t t 12 IfiiPJ MACtrlANo.2224 of 20i3 Rs.5,0o,0oo/- to be deposited in any nationarized bank for a period of five years. But by now, the purpose for which the learned Tribunal has ordered for depositing trre part of compensation for a period of live years might have been completed- Hence, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation awarded to him.

26. In the result, the Appeal is partly ailowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.13,5o,ooo/- to Rs. 19,ls,ggr/- which shall carrJr interest at T.so/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and severally. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without depositing any security. There shalr be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I

1. The Ghairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat-cum- the Xlll Additional chief Judge, ( Fast Track court ) city civir court, Hyoerib"a. 1 wittr records ) 2. one cc to sRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KAS| REDDY, Advocate topuc] 3. One GC to SRl. V. SAMBASTVA RAO, Advocate tOpUCJ 4. Two CD Copies I krrl/gh ?V L HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 c lATE r\\S #. a\1" .11. :ec$-.'1,;;; """ -T;i::'" -. . 1.';. .-!'. . ' l)ti(IREI: JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2224 of 20{3 A- o C) ti' T D I)..\I{'I'I,Y ALLOWING THE APPEAL \!'t-ilt()trT (tosTs fltn- @ 1,' i{ t t: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Between: Mohd. Moin pash?,,_g/.o. Late Mohd-.Abduilah occ. Driver in porice Department R/o. H. No. e_ 1 _50/e;'oH eow6nplilv, H"ilrirfr Lt, "nvi#oro. AND ...APPELLANT/ petitioner Residency, Minidter Road, secunderab;a.' - -- JuDrr .EDS' ,-/u. 4rlr\ 1- Mrs. Dronaryr Raju phani wo. DVR phani, occ Business, R/o. 43tA,Bhavani 2. National lnsurance Co. Ltd... F Jubiree Buirdins, Nampary s"LT; R[5 Ti"rgJ:?SS1!AEB815-8-568, r Froor, ...RESpONDENTS/ Respondents Appeal Under section 173 of M v Act aggrieved by the order and decree passed in o'P'No' 2608 of 201'l dated 30-05-26i3 on the fite of the court of the chairman, Motor Accidents claims tribunat-cum in" xill Additionat cnier Judge, (Fast Track Court ) City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum of Appeal, tfrc orders of the Lower courtand the maieriai prp"r" in the case, and upon hearing the arguments of sRl KASIREDDY JAGArfpil neooy, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri v. SAMBASTVA RAo, Advocate fol. tn" n"rpondent No.2 and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 This Court doth,order and decree as fofiows. 1. That the Appeal be and hereby is .parily altowed . 2- That the compensation be ana rcreoy'is enhancing from Rs. 13,50,000/_ to Rs. 19,10,991 which shall carry inierest ,t I soto per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of reatization payable by the respondents joinfly and severally. 3' That the respondents are direct,ed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from the date of recerpt of a copy or6is jftment. ;i :, ,: :i i :, I r1 i:

4. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby, is entitled to withdraw the same without depositing any security.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. " tt ILsv cEuu sDr- MoHD. tsrraaL REGISTRAR To oW

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- the Xlll Additional Chief b Pf4cE(* Judge, ( Fast Track Court ) City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. Two C.D.Copies lY HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 DI,CREE MACMA.No.2224 ot 2013 PAIITLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL \VI'I'HOUT COSTS h