The High Court · 2025

representing Mr. R. Anurag (SC FOR TGRTC) Counsel for the Respondent : SRI PALLATI CHANDRAMOUT-l The Court made the following: JUDGMENT TIIE IION'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMT BHATTACIIARYA AND THE HON'BLEJUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No.l056 of2017 JI]DGMENT: Qxr Hon'ble Justice Gadi Praveen Kumar) We have heard Mr.Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr.R.Anurag, leamed Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Road Transport corporation (corporation) appearing for the appellants and Sri p.chandra Mouli, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent (claimant)' and perused the record.

2. The present MACMA is filed by the Corporation being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal- cum-XIIIAdditionalChiefJudge(FTC),CityCivilCourt,Hyderabad (Tribunal) dated 22$8-2016 made in M'V'O'P'No'1945 of 2013 in allowing the claim of the claimant and awarding compensation of Rs.33,87,000/- with costs and interest @9% p'a'

3. The facts leading to the filing of the OP by the claimant before the leamed Tribunal are that on 24-l l-2012 at about 16-00 hours when the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP-llR-5152 along with his wife Smt.C.Narasamma as pittion rider from Pahadishareef 2 side towards Uppuguda, Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on the extreme left side of road, and when they reached Barkas CRpF Gate, Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad, one RTC bus bearing No.Ap_l lZ_5427 came in opposite direction, the driver of the said bus dr.r,e the bus in high speed, in rash and negligent manner without following traffic rules, lost control over the bus and dashed the claimant's motor (;ycre in opposite direction, on account of which, the claimant and his wite feil down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. The claimant and his wife were immediately shifted to osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, where the claimant was admitted as inpatient on 25-l l-2012, and larer claimant was shifted to Yashoda Hospitar, Malakpet, Hyderabad for berter rrearment, he was again admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery r>. 26-l l-2012 on spinal anesthesia, wound debridement and ORIF u,ith istar lemur LCp.

4. The claimant, at the time of incident, was u,orkinq as Govemrnent employee in Water Works Department drawing a salary of Rs.25,000/_ p'm. and used to contribute his entire eamings for maintenance or his flamily, thereby the claimant filed the Op claiming ,:ompensarion of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. 3

5. Per contra, the Corporation Frled counter-affidavit in the OP , denying the averments made in the claim petition stating that the amount claimed is excessive and exorbitant. 6 Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the leamed Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the peritioner is entitted for compensation? And if so' from whom'

2. To what reliefl

7. Before the leamed Tribunal, on behatf of the claimant herein' P.Ws.l to 5 were examined and Exs'A-l to A-l I were marked' whereas on behalf of the appellant-Corporation, none were examined nor any documents were marked. S.Dudngexamination,P.W.lwhoistheclaimant,statedthatwhilehe was proceeding on his motor cycle along with his wife Smt'C'Narasamma as pillion rider from Pahadishareef side towards Uppuguda' Hyderabad side with great care and diligence on extreme left side, the driver of the Corporation bus bearing No.AP-t lZ-5427 came in opposite direction at highspeedinrashandnegligentmannerwithoutfoltowingtrafficrules anddashedhismotorcycle,onaccountofwhich,hesustainedfracture 4 injuries and underwent treatment in yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad as Inpatient.

9. P.W.2 Dr.G.Subash Rao, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Doctor,s Multi Specialty Hospitar, Dilsukhnagar stated that on examination of the claimant, he found that the patient received compound o.mminuted Super condylar fracture of right femur.and comminuted fracturr: of right scapula thereby P.W.l developed malunion and,nable to sit and squar, and walk for long distance and do heavy works, thereby assessing the disability as 50o/o partial and permanent in nature. During cross_examination, p.W.2 deposed that there is no scope forreduction ofdisability in future.

10. During the examination of p.w.3, who is Senior orficer in Finance and Accounts working in Metro Water Supply and Sewerage Department at Narayanaguda, stated that the claimant's date of birth is l5-0g- 1965 and during the month of November, 2012,the claimant was drawing monthly salary of Rs.28, 136/-. In order to prove the same, Ex.A_ i0 pay stip of the claimant was marked. I l. The record speaks that on.account of the accident, the claimant was unable to discharge his duties for a totar of rg2 days. As per the nature and grade of job of the claimant, it involves field works rike going into the 5 manholes whenever drainage was stuck, and after the accident, the 'claimant is unable to do hard work nor getting into the drainage manholes'

12. During the examination of P'W'4, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Yashoda Hospital deposed that the claimant sustained grade-tl compound supra cundylar fracture of right femur and comminuted fracture right scapula and he was operated and plating was done for his fracture' that the injuries are grievous in nature and due to injuries' the claimant has permanent restriction of movement and pain in right knee' He further deposed that he examined the claimant clinically and assessed the disability at 30%o, which is partial and permanent in nature and issued Ex.X-l certificate. P.W'4 categorically stated that the claimant cannot discharge his normal work and is not in a position to sit without any support. In order to prove the same, he submitted Ex'A- I t X-Ray films along with Exs.A-S and ^A-6 which are the discharge summary and bills of the hospital.

13. The Tribunal held that as per the evidence o[ the doctors' their assessment of disability is contradicting with each other' Since' Ex'A-8 disability certificate issued by P'W'2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon in Muttispecialty Hospital, estimated the disability as 30%o of partial and 6 pernanent nature, thereby the leamed rribunal taking int,: consideration of the age of the clainrant as 47 years at the time of accidt:nt and multiplier 13, which is applicable for the age group of 46-50 years as well as taking into consideration of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in sarola Varma Vs. Delh Transporl Corporationr and considering the future prospects along with other entitlements, the compensatron was rounded to Rs.27,37,800/-.

14. Apart from that, the leamed rribunal further held that the claimant is also entitled for future operation and medical expenses including pain and suffering and mental agony, for extra nourishment, travelling and attendant charges, thereby held that the claimant is entitled for Rs. l-1,g7,000/- in all.

15. On perusal o[the record speaks that admittedly, the Corporation did not adduce any rebunal evidence regarding their liability It is not disputed even during the course of evidence.

16. Sri S.Maneesh Reddy, leamed counsel representlng Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation vehementl.;r contended that the Iearned rribunat failed to assign any specific finding c,r reasoning with ' zooelo; scc rz t 7 respect to the issue of fault or liability, whether it was t[e negligence of the ' injured or the driver ofthe vehicle betonging to the Corporation'

17. It was further contended that Exs'A-8 and X-l were marked in order to prove the disability, whereas Ex'A-8 disability certificate was assessed as 50%o while as per Ex'X-l it was assessed as 30%' Leamed counsel appearing on behalfofthe Corporation contended that the leamed Tribunal despite making observations regarding both the exhibits' proceeded to calculate the loss of eaming by considering the disability to be 50%o without assigning any reasons whatsoever' Further' Ieamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that Ex'A-8 relies on Kessler guidelhes while Ex'X-l relies on McBride guidelines' however, key differences column in the document' Kessler relies on questionnaire white McBride relies on physical examination' Therefore' it is contended that the leamed Tribunal ought to have considered the certificate which is relied upon based on the McBride guidelines'

18. Leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants further contended that the leamed Tribunal in spite of awarding loss of eamings under para-23, had once again awarded loss of eamings of Rs'2'00'000/- in para-24 ingluding awarding of Rs.50,000/- towards future operation solely 8 relying on the oral evidence ofthe Doctor. Therefore, hd contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the disability @ 3A% and ought not to have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of eamings once again and Rs.50,000/- towards future operation. Therefore, he pleaded for interference by this Court.

19. Per contra, Sri P.Chandra Mouli, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal has rightly relied upon the evidence on record including the disability certificates :i.e. Exs.A-8 and X-l and held that as per Ex.A-S, the disability suffered b-y the claimant to be 50Yo as per Kessler guidelines. Leamed counsel for the respondent further contended that Ex.X-l was issued by P.W.2 assessing the disabiiity at 30%:o and the same was assessed taking into consideration of McBride guidelines. It was further contended that the Kessler and McBride guidelines are different approaches to assessing the disability.

20. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the Motor vehicles Act is a beneficial legistation and when two views are possible, the view in favour of the victim should be considered as per the judgment 9 inBhupatiPrameelsandothersVs,superintendentofPolice' Wzianagaram and others2 -

21. The Kessler and McBride guidelines are different approaches to assessing disability, more particularly, in the context of workplace injuries or accidents. Kessler's guidelines often associated with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (Kl0/K6), focus on evaluating psychological distress and its impact on daily functioning' The Kesslear formula is a method used to calculate the overall percentage of permanent physical impairment (PPI) in motor accident claims, specifically for injuries involving multiple affected areas or body parts as well as to calculate tlrc psychological distress scale. The McBride guidelines contemplate in respect of the 'workers' compensation system and involve assessing the physical impairment resulting from an iniury and its impact on the ability toperformworktasks.Themethodologyinvolvesadetailedexamination of the injured area, including the range of motion, strength and other functional limitations' The McBride formula refers to a method which is used to assess cornpensation for lcss of dependency particularly when calculating future loss of earnings. It is based on the factors like diseased age, income and number of dependents, to determine the total ' :o ro(+) e,Lo :: t (os) \ 10 compensation amount while the Kessler formula is used i6 account for the combined effect of impairments and the impact on overall functionality.

22. Upon perusal of Ex.A-8, the leamed Tribunal held that the respondenVclaimant is suffering from 50%o permanent disability taking into consideration the guidelines of Kessler whereas Ex..K-l shows 30% disability, which is assessed as per McBride scale.

23. Considering the above aspects, this Court holds that despite the appellant's claim that the age and salary of the victim had been amplified, it cannot be denied that the claimant did suffer the ir;juries and lost his earning capacity permanen+,1y. Apart from this, it is pertinent to note that the psychological stress undergone b.v the claimant and his family had to be taken into account while caiculating the compensation.

24. Without going into the technicalities, the Motor 'y',:hicles Act being a beneficial legislation and when there are different v,iews that can be tak-en, the one which is more beneficial to the victim shoutd prevail

25. Therefore, this Court finds no reason to interfere, with the orders passed by the leamed Tribunal.

26. With the above observations, the MACMA is dismissed. No costs. 1l

27. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shatl stand closed.

28. However, we appreciate the persuasion made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. SD'-M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a /ITRUE COPY/' to,., SECTION OFFICER The Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional chief Judge (FTC)' ' cifi 6i;ii'blfi*ivi;ab;d' (with records' n i 8*'t i'3i"i.?iilHlttr1ffiffi"s, tvoca,e ropUCl "n'J, ,"o,"".ntins Mr. R.

4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL Y*- : (,) i) rtlN t$6 J l,: -r: r: l -* ,)/ -l ,rif n:.\)' 4" (Y. :/:r .i-..' "='. HIGH COURT DATED:09/09/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1056 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WTHOUT COSTS G ""d.4 &" IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD t 34el I TUESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MOTORA CCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1056 OF 2017 Between: 1 . Telanoana State Road Transoort Corooration (Prior- to bifurcation knowri as Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation), rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, RTC X Roads, Hyderabad.

2. The Depot Manager, Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Prior io bifurcalion kno*n as AMhra Pradesh State Road Transport corporation)' Falakunama Depot' HvderaolLor"r,-aoNTSTRESpoNoENTS AND C RAMULU, S/o. Late Achaiah, Aged about 50 years, Occ Govt. Employee, R/o. H. No.'l 8-1 -203lA,/1, Krishna Nagar, Uppuguda, Hyderabad. Appear rired under Section 173 or M.V.A"i'X=t:i:l'B=,[tit"=Jtg[ti daled 22.08.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1945 of 2013 on the file of the murt of the Motor Accklents Claims Tribunalcum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge {FTC), City Civil Cou(, Hyderabad. M. Osman Ali Baig This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case aM upon hearing the argument of Mr. Maneesh Reddy, learned counsel representing Mr. R. Anurag (SC FOR TGRTC), Advocate for the Appellants and SRl. PALLATI CHANDRAMOULI, Advocate appeared for Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby dismissed. 7 To

2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /,,), SECTION OFFICER llTrue Copyll

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional ,3hief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL f+- HIGH COURT DATED:09/09/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1056 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS "%