The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN M.A.C.M.A.No.573 OF 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appcal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'the ActJ by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.1O.2O18 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1019 of 2013 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge), at Nizamabad (for short, 'the TribunalJ seeking enhanccment oI compensation.

2. The brief lacts of the case are that tJle appellant has hled the said M.V.O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,O0,0OO/- from thc respondent for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accidcnt. [t is stated t]rat on 28.11.2011 at about 9:30 A.M., uhile the appellant was standing by the side of his agriculturc field and supervising the harvester for cutting his crop in the ficld, the driver of the harvester bearing No.AP-25- AA- 1686 drove it in zr rash and negligent manner at high speed, duc to n'hich, hc lost control over it and the wheel of the harvester ran over the right leg of the appellant. As a resulL, the appellant sustained multiple fractures of both bones of his right leg, fracture of skull, lracture of ribs, grievous injuries on the head and oth('r multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, thc appe llar-rt rvas shiftcd to Government Head Quarters 2 Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was given first-aid treatment and later shifted to Deepa Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where he trnderwent treatment as inpaLient from 2g. 1 1.201 I till 07.l2.2OL 1, wherein the appellant underwent major operations in the said hospital and after discharge also, he continued his follow-up treatment in private hospital.

3. It is further stated that at the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 45 years and was engaged in agriculture and labour work on contract basis etc., and used to earn more than Rs. l5,OO0/- per month. Due to the said accident, the appellant sustained aforesaid multiple fractures, due to which, the appellant lost his earning capacity and sustained permanent disability. It is further stated that the appellant had also spent more than Rs.2,00,O00/- tor treatment and medical expenses including extra nourishment. Based on a complaint, the Police, Nizamabad Rural police Station, registered a case in Crime No.466 of 2011 under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of crime vehicle.

4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: !-!FE-!-,t ) 1) Whether the oppellant sustained injuries in a road accident on 28.11.2O11 due to rash and negligent diuing of the diuer of tle uehicle beaing No.,4P-25-AA- 1 686? 2) Whether the appellant is entitled for compensation as praged? 3) To uhat relieJ?

6. During the course of trial, on behalf of ttre appellant, he himself got examined as P.W.1 apart from examining P.W.2 and relied upon documentary evidence under Exs.A- 1 to A-8 and Ex.A-9 (marked t hrough Commissioner). No oral or documcntary evidence is adduced on behalf of the respondent.

7. On perusal ol- the record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded total compensation of Rs. 1,65,130/- with interest @ 7.Soh per annum from the date ol the petition till the date of realization, to be paid by the respondent. Aggrieved by tlle said order and decree, the appellant/ claimant has filed the present Appeal seeking enhanccment of compensation.

8. l]eard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellernt and perust:d thc record.

9. Despite scrvicc of notice, none appeared for the respondent. 4

10. The core contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant has proved his case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A- I to A-9, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that due to the said accident, the appellant suffered grievous injuries and was aclmitted in the hospital and undergone major operations and incurred huge medical expenditures for treatment. Subsequently, su{fered permanent disability and had lost his earning capacity. By considering the nature of injuries sustained and expenses incurred for future treatment' the Tribunal ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation and prayed to allow the appeal' 1 I. Now the point for consideration is: "Wlether tlrc intpugned order and decree passed by the Tibunal ccrlts for any interference by this Court? If so, tuhether the appltait is entitled for any enhance ment of amPensation? "

12. [t is pertinent to note that in spite of several notices made on the respondent, there was no appearance on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, this Court without any other option has chosen to decide the matter basing on the mat'erial available on record. On'per-usal of the underlying order and decree dated F@7 5

27.1O.2018, it is evident that the Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.W. I coupled \4,ith the documentary evidence under Ex.Al (FIR), Ex.A 2 (Charge Sheet), Ex.A-3 (tnjury Certificate) has concluded that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle and answered the same in favour of the appellanl .

13. [t is an admitted fact that the appellant has not placed any evidence on record to establish that he was earning Rs. l5,OO0/- per month by doing agricultural and other 1abour works. Therefore, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income as Rs.6,0OO/- per month. The Motor Vehicles Act is a benehcial/ social welfare legislation, its primary objective is to provide relief to accident victims and their families, without entanglement in proccdural technicalities. As such, requiring a daily wage earner likc the appellant, who is a farmer to produce income proof/ certifica te u,ould be unrealistic and would defeat the very purpose of ttrc beneficial tegislation. In the absence of any definitc proof of incomc, the notional income of the appellant could bc [aken lor comput.ing the loss of earnings.

14. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sged. Soldtq and others u. Dittisional Manager, United Ind.ia Insurance Comtrtang Limltedt, has hetd that in thc absence of any specihc evidence to prove the income rtf a deceased or injured, notional income (20 r 4) I S( (' 7 rj 6 could be taken as the basis for calculating compensation. Thus, on an overall circumspection of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the year of accident being 2011 and the law laid down in the aforesaid case, this Court is inclined to consider monthly income of the appellant as Rs.7,SOO/_, which is just and reasonable.

15. [n regard to the quantum of compensation, it is evident that there is no dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous and simple injuries all over t1le body, on account of which, the appellant was admitted in the hospital from 28.lL.20ll to OT .l2.2Oll and has to undergo multiple operations and follow up treatments etc. It is to be noted that though the appellant has not clearly mentioned the period for which ioss of carnings are sought, this Court, after considering the nature of injuries suffered and age of the appellant, is of the considered opinion that at least three months time would be a reasonable period to fully recover to engage in his daily routine. Thus, considering the monthly inbome of the appellant as Rs.7,50O/- and the time period of three months for recovery loss of earnings, is computed at Rs.22,SOO/-(Rs.7,5O0 x 3 months).

16. It is pertinent to notc that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2-doctor, who deposed that the appellant has suffered one grievous injury, which is evident as per Ex.A_3 and coupled !\,ith other documentary evidence under Exs.A_6 to i I I 7 A-8, this Court is of the considered opinion Rs.25,OOO/ - towards one grievous rnJury' Tribr-rnal au'arded a sum reasonable. The that a sum of is just and of Rs.30,000/- suffering, Rs.37 ,127 I - towards medical towards Pain and expenses, Rs.2O,OOO/ - towards future medical expenses' Rs.30,000/- towards transportation' extra nourishment and attendant charges and Rs 3O,0OO/- towards loss of amenities' appears to be just and reasonable and does not call for any interference by this Court' ln total, the appellant is entitled to Rs.L,94,627 l- rounded to Rs 1,94,63O/- tou'ards compensation'

17. In view of the above facts and circumstances' this Court isofthcconsideredviewthattheimpugnedorderpassedbythe Tribunal is required to be modif-red to the extent of the above observations

18. In the result, the Appcal is partly allou'ed by enhancing the compensation amount lrom Rs l,65,i30/- to Rs'1'94'630/-' which shall carry inte res L (@ 9o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent. The respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount rvithin a period of two months from the date of receipt o[ a copy of this judgment On such deposit' the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any securlty 8 Consequently, miscelianeous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. U.SUDHA ASSI TANTREGISTRAR ON OFFICER To, Additionat District Judge ) at Nizamabad. 1 with record-s )

1. The chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar (Judge, Famiry court -+um- 'Nil{fl -ic:{1liq!!}ii:fl :ft ter,!,1fr Lp%,.#xil",,,,[?::.t",'*n,n uaoashrvanagar Mandal, Nizamabad District.

3. One CC to SRt. S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies kul/PSL Yk 1 HE SIA (., t o L, 1 I i{Afl 2026 I * Op jt:t,t ,.''+ '.:/ f, ..i s2' HIGH COURT OATED:21t1112025 +DECREE JUDGMENT MACMA.No.573 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACN,trA WITHOUT COSTS G cp{4 h,t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE TWENW FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.M. MOHIUDDIN M.A.C.M.A. NO:573 OF 2O2O Between: Dayani. Pedda Gangaram @ Pedda Gangaram, S/o. Ramulu, Age. 52 years, Occ. Agriculture and labour on contract basis etc., R/o. H.No.1110/2, Nvalkal Mllaqe. Nizamabad Mandal and District. AND ...APPELLANT/ petitio;er Nqsa Reddy. D, S/o. Lingaiah, Ag A.P.25.AA.1686, R/o. H.No. 5-1 9/3 Mandal, Nizamabad District. e. Major, Occ. Owner of Harvester bearing No. , Adlur Yellareddy Village of Sadashivanagar ...RESPONDENT/ Respondent Appeal Under Section 173 of the M.V. Act against the Order and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1019 of 2013 daled 27 -10-2018 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court -{um- Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad. This. appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the Memorandum,of grounds of Appeal, the orders of the Lower Court and the T_q!e!a! Leels !n the case, and upon hearing the arguments of Sri S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellaht and nbne appeared for Respondent. This Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is partly allowed 2. That the compensation amount enhancing from Rs. 1,65,130/- to Rs. 1,94,630/-, which shall carry interest @ 9o/o pd annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent.

3. That the respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any scurity. SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SEC OFFICER To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Judge, Family Court - cum- Additional District Judge ) at Nizamabad.

2. Two C.D.Copies KuI/PSL f*- i -J' orJ \ * 1HE S 1 I t'1r\F, zt]l \ I SmYC.trcO HIGH COURT OATED:2111112025 +DECREE MAGMA.No.S73 ol 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOLIT COSTS C"P(NA Lt w G(t'}t