The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRT'MALII DEVI EADA . M.A.C.M.A.NOs.551 & 457 OF 2021 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated O3.03.2O21 in M.V.O.P.No.388 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court Additional District Judge (FTC), Karimnagar (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarit5r, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that on O7.ll.2OOg the petitioner along with another person went for collection of cotton crop from Indurthy to Gudem in an auto bearing No.AP-15-X-2014 and after attending their work, they were returning in the same auto to their village, while on their way at about 18:0O hours, when they reached the outskirts of Muthannapet Vittage, the driver of their auto has driven it in a rash and negtigent manner at a high speed and dashed the auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794, as a result of which the petitioner received crush injury to her right leg. tmmediately she was shifted to Apollo Reach Hospital and her right foot above the knee was alnputated. Thus, she suffered 7Oo/o permanent disability and that her husband 2 ETD,J MACMA Nos.5E1_4G7_2021 deserted her following the amputation. Thus, she claimed a compensation of Rs. lO,0O,OO0/_.

4. The respondent Nos.l , 2, 4 and 5 remained ex_parte.

5. The respondent No.3 has liled counter denying the materiar averments with regard to the occurrence of the accident, &ge, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the alleged accident has occurred due to the sole negrigence of the driver of the auto bearing No.Ap-r5 -y-3zg4as per the crime record and not due to the negligence of the auto bearing NoAp-1s-x-2o14 and that the owner and insurer of auto bearing No.Ap_ LS_y_32g4 are liable to pa5r compensation if an5r, awarded by the court. it is further contended that the driver o[ auto bearing No.Ap_r5_x_2014 does not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that their company is not liable to pay any compenteition. ' 6' Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:_ 1- 2' tle arcident had. occttrred. due to rash artd. negligent *-,i'-f!, ffiy, :;;l:f.,1*y.{,y";;; whetrer *e petitiorrcr is entitred. to compensation- If so, to what amount and. from whom? To wlut relief ? 3 ETD,J MACMA Nos.561_467_2021

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined pws 1 to 3 and Exs.Al to A4 were marked. on behalf of the respondents RWs 1 and 2 was examined and Exs.Bl to 83 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.S,3o,ooo/- and fixed the liability on respondent Nos.1 to 5 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the said award MACMA.No.467 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance company questioning the liabiliry and MACMA.No.56 | of 2o2t is liled by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Rama chander Rao vemuganti, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.561 of 2021 and sri T. Mahender Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and for the appellant-lnsurance company in MACMA.No.46T of 2021.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence in proper perspective and has awarded very low amount towards compensation. His contention is that the petitioner used to work as a labourer and suffered amputation above the knee which causes her looo/o -functional disability and the same has to be considered by awarding the loss of future earnings. He further argued that the tribunal failed to consider future prospects while awarding loss of future income. Further the Tribunal has erred by deducting - F'-- - -r' 4 ETD,J MACMA Nos.551_467_2021 arnount from the annual income, which is not permissible in cases of permanent disability. He further argued that the petitioner has suffered huge loss in her life at the age of 2g, years. Having lost her limb, she also suffered desertion from her husband. Therefore, the counsel has prayed to enhance the compensation under all the heads.

11. The learned counsel for Insurance company has argued that the Tribunal has committed a grave error in fixing the tiability on their lnsurance company, though the auto which is insured with them vras not at fault in the accident. The crime record reveals that the accident occurred due to the negiigence of the Ap-15-y-37g4 and that the charge sheet is not filed against the drivcr of Ap- 1s-x-

2014. He therefore, argued that their company is not liabte to pay any compensation, but the Tribunal has fixe,J liabilif cn them. He further submitted that the Tribunal has held all the respondents to be jointly and severally liable, but has held that it is only the insurance company i.e, respondent No.3 to deposit the entire compensation amount. It is further directed to recover from the owner of auto bearing No.Ap-15-y-szg4 which is not insured with them. Thus, he contended that the liability should be fixed on the owner and insurer of the auto bearing No.Ap-15-y-3294 and not on the owner-arrd insureT of autffi e-aring No.Ap- 1 s-x- 2 o 1 4. L2. Based on the above rival contentions, this court frames the 5 ETD,J tutACMA Nos.561_467_202 1 following points for determination:

1. wletler the accident occuned only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driuer of atfio beaing No.Ap-l1_y_ 3794? Wetler auto beaing No. Ap-15-X-2014 wa.s not driuen bg its diuer in a rash and. negligent manner resulting in th.e orcturene of acrident?

2. Wether tle umpensation granted bg the Ttibunal i.s just and. reo,sonable.

3. Whetler the Order and Decree granted bg tle Tribunal need ang interferene?

4. To uhat relief.

13. Point No.1: a) A perusal of Exs.Al and A2 reveal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of auto bearing No. Ap- 15-Y-3794 and he is shown as the accused. There is no whisper about the rash and negligence of the driver of auto bearing No. Ap- 15-x-2o14, but PWI has deposed in her evidence that the driver of 2ol4 was rash and negligent and that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence of driver of auto bearing No. Ap-1s- x-2o14. In her cross examination, it is elicited that there are four passengers along with her in the said auto. b) The contention of the respondents is that there was no rash and negligence by the driver of auto bearing No.Ap-15-x-2014. To prove the same, they examined RWl, but he is not an eye witness to the accident. RWl/the Legal Manager of Reliance General I 6 ETD,J MACMA Nos.551_467 2021 Insurance company has denied the suggestion that the driver of auto bearing No.AP-1s-x-2014 was rash and negligent and had admitted that the petitioner is a 3rd party to the policy. c) Rw2 is also examined by the Insurance cornpany contending that the driver of the auto bearing No.Ap-15-x-2o14 did not have valid driving license to drive the vehicle as on the date of the accident. It is elicited from the RW2 that pochaiah S/o Mallaiah i.e., the rcspondent No.1 in this case, was issued driving license to dri'.'e LIVIV non-transport and MCWG motor cycle with gear on 06-02-2006 and that it is varid up to os.o2.2o26 and. that he does not have driving license to drive transport vehicles. It is further elicited from her that the auto bearing No.Ap- Ls-x-2oL4 is a transport vehicle and that the above said driver has no valid driving licensc to d-rive t]le said vehicle and that it is in violation of Motor Vehicle Rules. Through her, Ex.B3 an extract of the driving license of Pochaiah i.e., respondent No. r in the o.p is filed. d) A perusal of Ex.B3 reveals that pochaiah S/o Mallaiah was issued license on o6.02.2006 and is valid up to os.o2.2o26 and, that he holds a license to drive auto rickshaw non-transport, LMV non-transport and MCWG. Thus, through the evidence oi RW3 and Ex-B3, it is elicited that the driver of auto bearing No. Ap-ls-x- 2or4 did not have valid driving license to drive transport vehicle as on the date of the accident. 7 ETD,J MACMA Nos.56 1_467_2021 e) Thus, through the evidence of pwI, it is ericited that the driver of auto bearing No. AP-15-x-2o14 was rash and negligent in causing the accident, while the charge sheet reveals that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of auto bearing No.AP-r5-Y-3794. Pwl is none other than the injured witness. Her evidence also must be given credence. It is also made out from the record that the accident occurred while the vehicles were travelling in the opposite direction. Therefore, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles bearing Nos.AP-15-X-2O14 and Ap-15- Y-3794. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) The contention of. the claimant is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is very low. Her case is that she sustained grievous injuries and amputation of right leg above knee. In support of her case, she has liled Injuries Certificate under Ex.A3 and Disability Certilicate under Ex.A4. b) A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and that she suffered amputation of distal 1/3 of right foot and that she was given treatment at Apollo Reach Hospitals bearing I.P.No.3O6O which indicates that she was admitted in hospital. The petitioner has not filed any medical bills, )a 8 ETD,J MACMA Nos.561_467 2021 she herself has stated that she was working as a daily labourer. Thus, an inference can be drawn from the evidence on record that she was given treatment under Aarogra Sree. c) The evidence of Ex.A4/Disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board showing t.l.at the petitioner has sustained 5oo/o disability to the right lower limb due to post traumatic amputation. Further the petitioner got examined pw2 and 3. d) The evidence oi pw2 is to the effect t]:at he has issued Disability certilicate under Ex.A4 as Member of the District Medical Board and he stated that the petitioner cannot work as a daily iabour ciue to the saici amputation, as she cannot attenci to her daily routine activities. Nothing material was extracted during his cross examination to discredit his evidence. e) PW3 is the doctor who is an Emergency physician at Apollo Reach Hospitals. His evidence reveals thai ttre petitioner was admitted at their hospital on oz.ll.2oog and that the Doctor/Pankaj Kumar who is an orthopedician in their hospitai has treated her for three injuries i.e., traumatic amputation of right foot, right patellar fracture and large lacerated wound on anterior aspect of right knee to right thigh. And that amputation of right foot was done on 08. r 1 .2oog and she was discharged on L2.11.2oo9. He further stated that the first two injuries are 9 ETD,J MACMA Nos.561 467 2027 grievous in nature, while third injury is simple in nature and that the petitioner was advised to take bed rest for three months. His evidence reveals that Ex.A3 is issued by their hospitat. 0 It is elicited during his cross examination that he has not treated the petitioner, but he is speaking based on the record and stated that he does not know whether the petitioner was treated under Aarogra Sree Scheme. However, it is elicited from the record that the petitioner used to work as a labourer and has not filed any original medical bills or original discharge summary. Thus, it indicates that the petitioner was treated under Aarorya Sree. However, since no medical bills are filed, no amount can be awarded towards medical expenses. g) considering the evidence on record, it is opined that the petitioner must have suffered a lot, due to the injuries sustained by her which resulted in amputation of her leg. It is also further revealed that she suffered the accident at a young age of 2g years and that her marital relationship was broken as her husband disserted her following tJre amputation. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,oo,oool- towards pain and suffering, the same appears to be justified. h) Medical Bills are not liled hence the same cannot be awarded. However, some amount is awarded under the heads 10 ETD,,I MACMA Nos.561_467_2021 incidental expenses, transportation, extra-nourishment cannot be ignored. Therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded for the above heads. i) In Jegarani & Anothcr Vs. The Manqer BqCi A .l the Apex Court has held that, in case of a mason, no documentary evidence can be expected. However, taking into consideration the avocation of the deceased and the year of the accident being 2O13, the monthly income of the deceased could be reckoned at Rs.9,OOO/- and has also added future prospects. i) In Ratnacltandrappa Vs. Rogal AliTance Insurance Compang Llmitedzt the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,5O0/- per month can be safely taken as the income. In tlre said case, the accident occurred in 2OO4, but in the present case, the accident occurred in 2OO9. Therefore on a reasonable hypothesis, and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case, the monthly income of tJre petitioner is assessed as Rs.S,OOO/- per month. k) Ex.A4 shows that the petitioner has sustained SOo/o disability. Thc contcntion of thc pctitioncr counsel is that since she was a labourer and has suffered amputation of leg, in such caSes, '.;;;;*.*r'0"r,, dr, '(201r) 12 scc 236 11 ETD,J MACMA Nos. 5 6 L _467 _202t it would result in 1oo% unemployment for the labourer and thus, Looo/o functional disabitity has to be taken. He further relief upon the decision of the Apex court in La.lo;n D. Alio.s ra.l and another vs. orlental rnsurance comgtang Llmltr.lds; wherein in the said case, the injured-petitioner sustained brain injury and was totally unconscious and was represented by his wife as a legal guardian and next friend. Thus, in the said case, it was held that lOOo/o of functional disabilit5r was awarded. Thus, it was held that the petitioner was almost in coma stage, looo/o functional disabitity as awarded by the High Court was confirmed by the Apex Court. However, in the present case, it is the amputation of leg, hence, the facts and circumstances differ. l) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumara, the compensation towards future loss of earnings is awarded. The petitioner has suffered amputation of teg which would incapacitate her to work as a labourer, but it is mentioned in the Disability Certificate /Ex.A4 that; ocar1. perform work bg manipulating uith fingers bg pulling and pushing, by lifting, by kneeling and crouching, bg bending, bg sittirq, by standing and by walkingf'. Therefore, it is he.ld that disability of 50% is towards the limb and since it is amputated, it is held that it would affect her functioning to the extent of 50% and hence, the same is held 'lzozoyg scc 805 o zor t 1to scc 343 L2 ETD,J MACMA Nos.561_457_2021 towards loss of future earnings. After adding futuie prospects of 4oo/o, her monthly income would be Rs.7Ooo/- and the loss of future earnings is arrived at Rs.Tooo xt2 = g4,ooo x 50% x LT which comes up to Rs.7,I4,OOO/-. m) She must have suffered acute trauma and must have been out of work for atleast one year. Therefore an amount of Rs.90,o0o/- is awarded under the head loss of earnings. n) In all, petitioners are entitled to the following compensation amounts: sr. No. 1

2. 3. 4 Name of the heads Compensation under the head t4juries, shock, Pain and suffering Loss of fu ture earnings due to of loss of Compensation under tlle head of hospital, Medical Expenses, transport, extra-nourishment and incidental Total Awarded by this Court E"4E. 2,OO,OOO / - 90,000/- 7,L4,OOO/- 2O,OOO /- lo,24,oool o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.lo,75,ooo/- which is found to be just and reasonable, while the Tribunar has awarded Rs.S,3o,ooo/-. T-herefore, it is opined that thc petitioner is entifled for enhancemen t of compensation. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. PTOINT NO.B:- 13 ETD,J MACMA Nos.5'6 1_467_202 1 The award passed by the Tribunal needs to be modified with regard to quantum of compensation enhancing it Rs.10,75,000/- from 5,30,000 /- that is awarded by the Tribunar. Further, with regard to the liabilit5r, the Tribunal has held that the respondent Nos.l to 5 are jointly and severally liable. However, it was held by the Tribunal that respondent no.i i.e., the insurer of vehicle bearing No.Ap- ls-x-2o14 is made liable to pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle bearing No. Ap-1s-y-3294, the same is contended by the Insurance counsel that "they cannot recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle which is not insured with them.,, [t is already held under Point No.l that both the drivers of the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident. Hence, it is held that the Iiability is lixed in the ratio of 5o:5o on respondent Nos.l to 3 on one side and 4 and 5 on the other. Therefore, it is held that the respondent No.3 is liable to pay 50% of the compensation and recover the same from the respondent No.l who is the owner of auto bearing No. AP-15-x-2o14, while the so% of the amount has to be recovered by the petitioners from the driver and owner of the auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794 i.e., respondent Nos.4 and s. Point No.3 is answered accordingly. \ir \ \ \ eto,t MACMA Nos.561-467-2021 74

16. PlOrNT NO.4: In the result MACMA.No.467 of 2021 frled by the Insurance Company is dismissed, while MACMA.No.561 of 2021 filed by the claimant is allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.10,75,O0O/- from 5,30,OOO/-i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. F\rrther the liability is fixed in the ratio of 5O:50 on respondent Nos.l to 3 on one side and 4 and 5 on the other. Therefore, respondent No.3 is directed to pay 5O% of the compensation and recover the same from the respondent No.l who is the owner of auto bearing No. AP-15-X-2OI4, while the 50% of the amount shall be paid by the respondent Nos.4 and 5 who are the driver and owner of the auto bearing No.AP-15-Y-3794. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand clssed. I / SD'. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR i //TRUE COPY/' SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family CpU(: - *-_- cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar. 2.- One CC to Sri Ramachandar Rao VemugantiAdvocate IOPUC] 3. Onee-gtdSriT tuanender Rao, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL HIGH COURT D ATED:0110812025 { COMMON JU GMENT+..DECREE D MACMA.Nos.56f & 4GT OF 2021 TA.rE !\L' r,l .k I o tJ * MACMA No.561 OF ZA21 lS ALLOWED AND DlsMlsslNc THE MACMA No.46z rs DtsMtssED U u ( / IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.Nos. 561 & 467 OF 2021 M.A.C.M.A.No. 561 OF 2021 Between: Andhe Anthanigalla Laxmi, Wo. Ravi D/o. Rajaiah, Aged 24 years, Occ. Presently Nil, Prior to the accident Labour, R/o. Indurthy Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District. ..AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. lrugu Pochaiah AP-15-X-2014, District. , S/o. Mallaiah Age. 36 years, Occ. Driver of.Auto Bearing No. R/o. lndurthy Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal Karimnagar

2. A. Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Rajaiah, Age. Major, Occ. Owner of Auto Bearing No. AP 15-X-2O14, R/o.7/61/1, lndurthy Village of Chigurumamidi Mandal, Karimnagar District.

3. Reliance General lnsurance company Limited., Represented by its Branch Manager H.No. 3-1-580, 3rd Floor, Kyasa Towers Near Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar Branch.

4. Gudelli Srinu, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age 23 years, Occ. Driver of Auto B. No AP- 15-Y-3794, FUo. Gudem Mllage of Bejjanki Mandal, Karimnagar District. 5. S. Srinivas, S/o. Balaiah, Age . Major, Occ. Owner of auto bearing No. AP-15- Y-3794, R/o.H.No, 2-5311, Kasimpet, Bejjenk Mandal Karimnagar District. ... Respondents/Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No. 467 OF 2021 Between: Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd, rep. by its Branch Manager, H.No. 3-1-580, lll Floor, Kyasa Towers, Ambedkar Road, Near Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar Branch. D

1. Andhe Anthanigalla Laxmi, Wo. Ravi D/o. Raiaiah. aqe- 32 vears. Occ- presetly Nil, Prior to the accident- Labour, Fl/o. tndurthy Villale of Chigurumamidi mandal, Karimnagar Distiict. ' .AppellanURespondent No.3 Z. Egg lo.chgia.h, S/o- Mallaiah, age- 44 years, Occ- Driver of auto No. Ap 15X 2014, R/o. lndurthy Vifiage of chiguruniamidi Mandar in xarlmnagaiDiitrici-' 3 | V9$g!q9hwarlu,, S/o. Rajaiah, Age- Major, Occ- owner of Auto bearino N-o. Ap 15X 2014, R/o. H.Nd. z6il1; tndur[hyviilage of CtrigJil;1-ari;i"'" Mandal, Karimnagar District.

4. G_u^delli Srinu, S/o. Kanakaiah, Age- 31 years, driver of Auto B.No. Ap 1Sy " - ' 3794, Rio. Gudem vifiage of Bejj6nki Mindat,'Karimnagai DiJtiici.

5. S. Srinivas, S/o. Balaiah, age- Major, Occ- Owner of Auto 3794 R/o. H.No. 2-53ll , Kasimpet, Beljenki Mandal, Karimnagar No. AP 15Y ...Respondents/Respondent Nos. 1,2,4 & 5 Appeal filed Under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg against the order and decree in M.V.o.p.No.388 of 2013 dated.03/0312021 on the nrJoi tt= Corrt ot the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family corrt;;.- Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar. .This appeal coming_on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the irateriai pipers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri nam cnanoa? nao vemuganti, Advocate for the appellant in MACMA.No.s61 ol 2021 i."pona.nt in MACMA.No.467 of 2o2't and of sri r.Maherder Rao, Advocate to, tt" re.[ona"nt in MACMA.No.561 ot 2021 and Appeilant in MACMA.No. i6,l oi 2021. "nJ This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA No.467 of 2021 be and hereby lnsurance company is dismissed, while MACMA.No.56'I ol 2021 is allowed, enhancing the compensation to Rs.10,75,000/- from 5,30,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal.

2. That the liability is fixed in the ratio of 50:50 on respondent Nos.1 to 3 on one side and 4 and 5 on the other. 3' That the Respondent No.3 is directed to pay s0% of the compensation and recover the same from the respondent No.1 who is the owner of auto bearing No.Ap-15-X- 2014, while the s0% of the amount shalr be paid by the respondent No]s.4 and s wno are the driver and owner of auto bearing No.Ap_15_y_3794. '(J"

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSITANT /,TRUE COPY// OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge Family Court- cum- Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies NVB \ \ HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 D ECREE MACMA.Nos.SO1 & 461 OF ZO21 MAGMA No.561 OF ZA21 lS ALLOWED AN DISMISSING THE MACMA No.467 lS DISMISSED \ $ J(