The High Court · 2025

the Tata Super ACtr . It is contended that on 15.06.11 was standing by the side of the road infront : ) 14, the petitioner ' Navyasri Hotel, Nasurullabad to go to Boppaspally at about 8:45 a.m. along with others, in the meantime TATA Super ACE auto bearing No.li '-25-X-8792 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner qt4 4gi hed the petitioner 2 /\l?rfr'\' NACUA llr.550 0J 2020 and other persons, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture on his left hand ald fracture on both legs. The petitioner was immediately taken to Government Area Hospital, Banswada, irom there he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizambad and subsequently, he was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizambad, wherein he underwent treatment as in patient for about one month and surgeries were conducted on her right hand, right leg and steel rods were inserted After the discharge from hospitals he took treatment from private doctors and incurred an amount of Rs.2,O0,00O/- towards medical expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy ald he was aged about 4O years and was earning Rs.25,000/- by doing toddy tapping, toddy business and agriculture, due to:the said accident, he was unable to do his day to day work and he could aot move from bed.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondents No. I the drir.er of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The respondent No.2 TATA AIG Insurance Company filed their counter-afhdavit, denving all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in u,hich the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and --t I I I I I I I I I i l I Ct 3 IVNR,J NACUA No.55O ol 2O2o and further contended that the compensation clajmel by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition'

4. Basing on the pleadings and averments me le by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following is sues which reads as under: "i) Whether the qccident occuned. due to the rash and negtigent c'iuing of TATA Supre ACE Auto bearin(t N}.AP 25-X-8792 bg its driuer?

2. Whether the petitioner ts entitled for compensation, if so to w\ '.t amaunt and from uhich of the respondents?

3. To uhat relieP'

5. After perusing the oral and documentary evide:l :e and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by botir the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and grantex compensation of Rs. 1,60,000/ - along '"\,ith interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum.

6. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meeLl er compensation amount awarded by the iearned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learned Ti'ibunal did not choose to consider that the petitioner sustained gri,: ,ous injuries and fractures injuries i.e., fracture on left hand, fracturt: on both legs and skull injuries and that he has incurred more than t s.2,00,000/- and 4 rviv&J NracMA ,.to.sso or 2020 was in hospital for more than two months as inpatient. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.3,OO,00O/- with interest and also the loss of earning, medical bills and transportation charges. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted a reasonable amount towards pain and sufferance, but the Iearned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.3O,000/ - towards pain and sufferance. Though the petitioner has placed the relevant certificates issued by the doctors that the petitioner has incurred Rs.70,000/- for removal of steel rods, the learned Tribunal had awarded only Rs.25,000/-.

07. Heard Sri Kutttti Bhaskar Roro, learned counsel representing Sn S. Surender Reddy, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.Mahender Rco, learneci counsel for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

08. Admittedly, respondents have not frled cross-appeal agarnst the Award passed by the learned Tribr:lal. 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 petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to tLLLot ertent? 5 rvrn J ,TACVA I&-SSO ol 2O2O Poht l[o.l 09. Admittedly, the present appeal is {iled by the a having been unsatisfred of the compensation awarclr Tribunal i.e., Rs. 1 ,60,000/ - as against the appellant/claimant i.e., Rs.3,00,000/ -' Admittedly, 1l regarding the nature of accident ald the involvemen' rpellant/claimant d by the learned claim of the ere is no disPute of the said TATA Super ACE Auto and there is also no dispute with tht fact that the said vehicle was insured with respondent No'2' It is also r ot in diSpute that the said accident was occurred due to rash and neg i ;ent drirring of the driver of the said TATA Super ACE. The main grievan :e of tl.e petitioner is that the learned Tribunat ought to have considere<l sustained two grievous injuries which rvas also that the petitioner iupported bY the evidence of PW-2 the doctor who treated the petitir ner and ought to have awarded just arld fair compensation'

10. As seen from the record, the learned Tribunal rr varded an zunount of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suflerance for two : is of the opinion that the same is just and li njuries, this Court ir and needs no interference. I I I I i 1i ) i I t 6 wllR,J U CXA l.b. 55o o, 2O2O 1 1. Admittedly, there are three injuries and though the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in respect of ther.e being no doctor being examined and aiso no proof is filed to show that whether the said implants were removed or not. The learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,0OO/- as against the claim 9f the petitioner i.e., Rs.70,0007-, this court is of the opinion that the leamed Tribunal ought to have awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- for removai of three steel rods i.e., Rs.25,O00/- for each and as such this court is inclined to award the same i.e., Rs.75,000/- toryartis removal of steel rods L2. Coming to the aspect of loss oi eaniing, 'th; I".med Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,0OO/ for loss of earning during tlie said period by taking the income of the petitioner @) Rs. 10,000/-. Though the claim of the petitioner was that the petitioner was earnin$ Rs.25,OO0/- per month by doing toddy tapping, todciy business and agriculture, this Court is of the opinion that as the petitioner sustained three. grievous injuries and was done surgeries to his legs as they were fractured and also the ankle, as seen from the record that the petitioner was doing toddy tapping and 1 agriculture he might no( be able to move from his bed as both of his legs were fractured, obviousll. he might have taken bed rest for about three .<--n 7 /Il\R,J yActtA No.55O oJ 2O2O months, considering the same, the income assesse I by the learned Tribunal @ Rs.1O,00O/-, this Court is of the opinion .hat an amount of Rs.3O,O00/- in place of Rs.20,000/- would be approp riate towards loSs of earnings. .':

13. This Cotirt is not inclined to interfere with he compensation awarded towards transportation and extra nourlshme rt i.e., Rs'5,000/-

14. .The trearned Tribunal having taken into considr) ation.Exs-A6 and A7 has awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/-, to';.'ards r redical bills whcih needs no interfererrce.

15. On gverall re-appreciation of the pleadings, mat€ ia,l on record this Court is of the opieion. that the petitioner is entitled 1 I enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above z nd as given in the I + table below for easy reference. / Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Arnoru t aEived at by t ris Court 20 000 BS Rs.5 ooo Rs.5,0OO R s.75 oo0 Rs.25,OOO Rs 30,00O/ - f l.! ,30 o r.5,0O0 75 oo0 i ! It tlr,75 ri 3o,coo/- Head loss of earning Transpo!-tation Charges Extra nourishment Medical Bills Removal of implants Pain & sullerance i : i { : ! i r I t I i I I I B /van,J aActa ,\b.554 oJ 2O2!' Total Rs.1,60,000/- Rs.2,20,OOO/-

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,2O,(XX)/- (Rupees Two Lakh TWenty Thousand Onlyf with the interest of 7.So/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. 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 perioci of tu,o months from the receipt of a,copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing aly suret5r. There shall be no order as to costs

17. Miscellarreous petitions, if arry are pending, shali stand closed. SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUW REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I '-i To, fne Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Addl' District Judge, Nizamabad

2. One CC to sRt KURITI BHASKARA RAO, Advocate [QPUC] g. One CC to SRI T MAHENDER RAO, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL $\ HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 i I i I I i : ,qrtl t:H1 o 4 1i f\ Kls, a_. z-(; 'i,{ * JUDGMENT MACMA.No'550 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT C:I)STS v *A IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134431 THURSDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 550 OF 2020 Between: Mr.Arella Saya Goud, S/o Parsa Goud, Age 46 years, Occ. Toddy taper and Toddy business and agriculture etc., R/o H. No.3-104, Bommandevpally Villqge, Birkur tVlandal, Nizamabad District, presently residing at YellammagUtta, Nizamabad AND ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT

1. Mr.Mudam Rajkumar, S/o Mudam Balaiah, Major, Owner of TATA Super ACE Auto bearing No.AP25-X-8792, Rlo H No.1-140, Bhiknoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State

2. M/s.TATA AIG lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch office, 4th Floor, Block-A, My Home Tycoon, Kundan Bagh, Begumpet, Hydeabad - 500 016. (Vide Certificate-cu m-Pol icy No 06400 1 /O 1 40 1 321 7 7 1000000/00 valid from 12.10.2013 to 1 1.1O 2014) ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of NI V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 27.06.2019 passed in tt4 V.O P. No 320 of 2014 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Addl. District Judge, Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and tl >on perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of th< Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing tir -' argument of SRI KURITI BHASKARA RAO, Advocate for the A'r rellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRI T. MAHENDE R RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lt4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneus \ppeal be and is hereby party allowed. 2 That the compensation be and is heretl enhanced from Rs.1,60,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Tv 'o Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only) with the interest of 7.5% on th< enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petittcr till the date of rea lization.

3. That the respondents be and are hereby dirr: :ted to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest a1:r giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, wit" n a period of two mcnths from the date of receipt of a copy of th s judgment. 4 That on such deposit by respondents, the pe i ioner be and is by permitted to withdraw the same without furnist- i tg any surety 5 That there shall be no order as to costs in this z ppeal llTrue Copyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL IIEPUTY REGISTRAR IS ECTION OFFICER To '1 The Chairman, tVotor Accident Claims Tribune l-cum-Vlll Addl District Judge, Nizamabad. 2 Two CD Copies. HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 DECREE MACMA.No.550 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT CO{iTS J