The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.NI.A. is {lled under Section 173 of t re Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appeilant/claimant aggrieved by thr' Award and decree dated 27.06.2Oi9 passed in M.V.O.P.No.3l9 of 2014 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge, Nizambad, (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking :ompensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the peti ioner in a motor vehicle accident tllat took place or-r 15.06.2014.

2. The brief lact of the case is that appellzL rt/ claimant fiIed M.V.O.P.No.319 of 2074 under Section 166(1)(a) of . re M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and nel; igent manner by

the Tata Super ACtr . It is contended that on 15.06.20 4, the petitioner rvas standing b5, the side of the road infront o' Nalyasri Hotel, Nasurullabad to go to Boppaspally at about 8:45 a.m. e long with others, in the meantime TATA Super ACE auto bearing No.AF'. 25-X-8792 carr,e in high speed in rash and negligent marner and dash :d the petitioner 2 nIl\,R'J MACMA No. 54A ol 2O2O and other persons, due to which the petitioner sustained fracture on her right hand and fracture on right leg, fracture to skull, fracture to her ribs and other injuries al1 over the body. The petitioner was immediately taken to Governrnent Area Hospital, Banswada, from there she was shifted to Governmerit Hospital, Nizambad and subsequently, she was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizambad, rvherein she underwent treatment as in patient for about one month arid operations were conducted on her right hand, right leg and steel rods were inserted. After the discharge from hospitals she took treatment from private doctors and incurred an amount of Rs.2,0O,000/- torvards medical expenses. The petitioner was hale and healthy and she was aged about 19 years and was earning Rs.20,000/- by doing tailoring, embroidery work, vegetable and milk business and due to the said accident, she was unable to do her day to day work and she could not move from bed.

3. Before the learned Tribunal, Respondents No.l the driver of the crime vehicle remained exparte. The respondent No.2 TATA AIG Insurance Company filed their counter-affrdavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which 3 n lw,J lltACMA No.54a of 2O2O the accident took place, age, avocation and income cl the petitioner and and further contended that the compensation claim,:1 b1'the petitioner is excessive and prayed to clismiss the claim petition

4. Basing on the pleadings and averments r:r lde by both the counseis, the learrred Tribunal framed the following i;sues which reads as under "i) Whetl'Ler the accident occurred due to the nrsh nrd negligent TriuiLg of TATA Supre ACE Artto beanng No.AP 25 X 8792 bA tts clnuer?

2. Whether the petitioner is etltitled for comperrsatiort, if so to r.t ,ot otnount and from uhich of lhe respondents?

3. To what relief>"

5. After perusing the oral and documentar5r evide rce and going into the enfire record and the evidence placed by bot.l L the parties, the learned Tribunal ailowed the claim in part and grant€ l compensation of Rs. 1,3O,OOO/- along with interest (14 7 .5% per annunr

6. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the me I ger compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the preserr appeal is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learnerl Tribunal did not choose to consider that the petitioner sustained gri:,,ous injuries with fractures and that sbqhas incurred more than Rs.2. )0,000/- and was 4 N]VR,J NACMA No. 548 of 2o2o in hospital for more than t\r,o months as inpatient. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.2,O0,O00/ 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. The learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance for removal of the steel rods. Though the petitioner has placed the relevant certificates issued by the doctors that the petitioner has occurred Rs.75,OO0/- for removal of steel rods.

07. Heard Sri Kurttti Bhaskar Rao, leamed counsel representing Sn S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Srt T.Mahender Rao, learned counsei for the respondents. Perused the material on record

08. Admittedly, respondents have not frled cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respcndents and occurrence of the accident. The only point that arose befor-e thrs Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitied fcr the enhanced compensation, if so, to what ertent? 5 ]V?VR,J MACMA No.s48 of 2o2o Point No.1 A9. Admittedly, the present appeal is hled by the r ppellant/ claiman t having been unsatished u,ith the compensation ar,l'at', led by the learned Tribunal i.e., Rs. 1,30,00O/ - as against tlrt claim of the appellant/claimant i.e., Rs.3,00,000/-. Admittedll-, : rere is no dispute regarding the nature of accident and the involvemetr of the said TATA Super ACE Auto and there is also no dispute with tL r fact that the said vehicle r.r,as insured with respondent No.2. It is also r .ot in dispute that the said accident u,as occurred due to rash and neg r lent driving of the driver of the said TATA Super ACE. The main grievzur :e of the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal ought to have considere<l that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries which was also ;upported by the evidence of PW-2 the doctor who treated the petiti') rer, and ought to have awarded just arld fair compensation. 1o. As seen from the record, the learned Tribunal z. rarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferance for t'r c injuries, in the opinion of this Court an additional amount of Rs.25,000/ for the additional grievous injury that has caused, this C< urt is inclined to award the same 6 ,:: An4,J ilACMA No.54a of 2O2O fl. Admittedly, there are three injuries, though the learned counsel for the respondent contended that in respect of there being no doctor being examined and also no prcof is Iiled to shou,, whether the said implants were removed or not. The learneci Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,O00/- as against the ciaim of the petitioner i.e., Rs.67,0O0/-, this Court is also of the opinion that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and fair anC needs no interference.

12. Coming to the aspect of lcss of earning, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,O00/- for loss of ea-.ning durirrg the said period- by taking the income cf the petitiorLer @ Rs.5,O00/-. Though the claim of the petitioner was that the petiticrrer was earning Rs.20,00O/- per month by doing tailcrng arrC selling ,iegetables, this Couri is aisd of the opinion that in the absence cf any incorrre proof, the income taken by the leamed Tribural Ceems to be p:-cper and correct.

19. Considering the fact that the petiticner sustained two grievous injuries i.e., on right tliigh and right hand, and afso considering the ground realities, the petitioner might have taken bed rest for more than two rnonths, as such, an amount cf Rs.5,000/- would be reasonable and 7 {\AIR,J MACITA No.54a of 2O2O proper in addition to the amount awarded by the Trilr rnal. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the compensation aq.arded tou,ards transportation and extra nourishment i.e., Rs.5,000 l.each. l+. The learned Trlbunal having taken into consid: .ation Exs-A6 ald A7 has awarded an arnount of Rs.59,000/-, tot,r -ds medical bills. Hence, this court does not see any grounds to inter'ere with the said amount.

15. On overall re appreciation of the pleadings, mate -ia1 on record and submissions made by both sides, this Court is of tLr opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensaticr as modifred ald recalculated as above and as given in the table beloll, [,r easy reference. Head Loss of earnin Trans ortation Char Extra nourishment Medical Bills Removal of im plants Pain & sufferance s Amount arrived at by thc Tribunal Amoun r arrived at by I is Coutt Rs6 ooo R s.5 ooo Rs.5,OOO Rs.59,OOO/ Rs.3O ooo Rs.25,OOO/ R I t2 ooo l, 5,o00 l r .5,o0 o I Rs 59 000 Rs 30 ooo Rr 5O,OOO/- Total Rs.1,30,OOO/- Rs:,61,OOO/- l I I l I I B M{R,J ilACMA No. 548 oI 2O2O

16. In the result, the appeal is aliowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 1,30,000/- to Rs.1,61,OOO/- (Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand Only) with the interest of 7,5"/" on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of pbtition 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 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw *.he same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs Miscelianeous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/. T.SRINIVASA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SE TION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. ( With records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. Kuriti Bhaskara Rao , Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. T.Maherder Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies u, PSL HIGH COURT DATED.24t07 t2025 JUDGMENT l\ilACMA. No.548 of 2020 f! o() t $ JAN 7975 * { )AEparct{.i) k(...,, * .': M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWED, 1 I ! I 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA THURSDAYTHE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 548 OF 2020 Between A.Pravalika, D/o A.Saya Goud, Age 25 years, Occ. Tailoring, Embroidery works, Vegetable and Milk business etc., R/o H.No,3-104, Bommandevpally Village, Birkur Mandal, Nizamabad District, presently residing at Yellammagutta, Nizamabad Ap pella n ts/C la rm a nt AND 1 Mr.Mudam Rajkumar and another, S/o lrludam Balaiah, Major, Owner of TATA Super ACE Auto bearing No.AP25-X-8792, Fl/o H.No.1-140, Bhiknoor Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District, Telangana State 2 tr//s.TATA AIG lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch office, 4th Floor, Block-A, My Home Tycoon, Kundan Bagh, Begumpet, Hydeabad-500016. (Vide Certificate-cum-Policy No 06400 1 /0 1 4 01 3217 7 1000000/00 valid tr om 121 1 0 1201 3 lo 1 1 I 1 Ol20 1 4) ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.VO.P.No.319 ot 2014 dated.27l06l20't9 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIll Additional District Judge, N izam a bad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Kuriti Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for the appellant and of Sri T.Maherder Rao, Advocate for the respondent No.2. This Court doth order and decree as follows

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.1,61,0001 (Rupees One Lakh Sixty One Thousand only) with the interest of 7 5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensi tion from the date of petition till the date of realization; 2. That the respondents are directed to deposit the said amount tr> lether with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already depor; ed, if any, within a period of Two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this .J tdgment;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdrir v ihe same without 4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. furnishing any surety; sD/- T Sr.rNrvASA REDDY ASS]S- ANI'REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ECTION OFFICER To, ! 1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Vl I \dd jtional District Judge, Nizamabad. ( With records if any)

2. Two CD Copies AP PSI, HIGH COURT DArED 24t07t2025 DECREE MACMA No.54B of 2020 M.A.C].M,,,\. IS AI-I-OWED b