The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A. No.585 of 2O2O JUDGMENT: This appezrt is hled by the appellant-petitioner being not satisfied with the award and decree dated 05.02.2o19 passed in M.V.O.P.No.5iz3 of 2013 on the hle of the Chairmarr, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-vll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunat,). 2. The petitio;-rer sustained injuries in the road accident, has hled this petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 r/w Ruie 455 of the A.p Motor Vehicles Rules, 19g9, against the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,OO,OO0/_ towards compensation together with the interest @ 24% per ann,m from the date of petitron tilt the date of realization against which the learned Tribunai granted an amount of Rs.3,30,O3g/_ towards compensation p.yable to the petitioner w.ith future interest @ 7.SYo per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Being not satisfied with the said award and aggrieved by the sa-rne appella:rt-petitioner preferred present appeal on the ground that th-e learned rribunar did not chose to consider the huge medical expenditure incurred for the treatment and \ { 2 granted meager amount of compensation. It is also contended M-A.C.M.A No.s85 oJ 2YO that appellant was ha1e ald healthy, aged about 30 years at the time of accident and earning Rs.2O,O00/- per month but the learned Tribunal did not chose to award any compensation under the head Loss of Earnings. Though, it is contended that the appellant sustained fracture injuries in the accident and having sustained grievous injuries and could not attend his normal duties and the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under the head of loss of earnings, future loss of earnings, attendant charges arrd future medica-l expenses.

3. It is submitted that respondent No. 1 was set ex parte before the Tribunal as such notice on respondent No.1 1S dispensed with.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Having heard and on perusing the entire material placed on record including the record from the lower Court, the point that arose before this Court is that "uthether the appellant' petitioner b entitled for enhancement of compensation as praged for?".

6. The main grievance of the petitioner before this Court is NNR) M-A-C-M.A No.585 oJ 2O2O that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries like fracture of Nasal Bone, fi'acture of right thigh, fracture of skull, fracture of ribs and other multiple injuries all over his body but as per the injury certificate, it is submitted that petitioner sustained only nasal injury ald injury on thigh. Admittedly, petitioner was shifted to Surya Hospital, Armoor, where he was given treatment and referred to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad from there he was referred to Hyderabad for expert and specialist tleatment. He was admitted in Care Hospital, Hyderabad wh.ere he was treated as inpatient from 3O.O4.2OL2 to 12.05.2012.

7. It is conl-ended by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal did not considered the aspect of loss of earnings, loss of futr-rre earnings and also the attendant charges for the purpose of assessment of loss of earnings, the petitioner ought to have r:xamined any of the doctor to show that the nature of the treatment obtained by the petitioner and the advise given by the said doctor and also the bed rest obtained by the petitioner. Besides that the petitioner did not chose to place any evidence before the Tribunal to shoqr the income proof even 4 otherwise as the contention of the petitioner is that the NNR] M.A.c-M.A No 585 oJ 2O2O petitioner was driver and doing vegetable business and considering the age of the petitioner he might have earn some amounts by way of doing driver occupation and doing the vegetable business, but nothing has been placed before the Tribunal. But considering the ground realities the income of the petitioner can be taken into consideration as Rs.5,000/- per month which an ordinary agricultural labourer would get. Considering the same and also the treatment obtained by the petitioner as per the record and considering the probable issues, the petitioner might have taken bed rest for about two to three months. Considering the same, arl arnount of Rs. 15,O00/-ought to have been awarded by the learned Tribunal, but in the present case the learned Tribuna,l has lost sight about the same. Besides that the learned counsel for the petitioner has also sought for the compensation towards future loss of earnings which the learned Tribunal did not chose to award the same for the reason that no disability certilicate was prodnced by the petitioner as such I do not see any ground to interfere in respect of the said hnding. ' j;!!:.' i-"!3tE:i==Jf

8. As further seen from the record, that learned Tribunal was NNN M.A.c.M.A No.585 of 2O2O 5 pleased to awartl an amount of Rs.2,15,038 towards the medical expenses. Basirrg on the medical bill which is submitted by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal was also kind enough tc award an arnount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs. 15,000/- towards two injuries sustained by the petitioner and Rs. 15,0OO/- towards pain and suffering for the two injuries and also ought to have award an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- towards extra nourishment. As the petitioner has no grievance as to awarding of the said amount, but the only aspect which the petitioner raised before this Court is in respect ,cf above three heads i.e., loss of earnings during \.. the treatment obtained, loss of attendant charges and loss of future earnings for which the petitioner having not placed any disability certih,:ate and also not placed any evidence to show that attendan:Lt was engaged, 1n absence of evidence to that extent the sarr e cannot be awarded.

9. Coming tc, the aspect of loss of earnings during the treatment, as held by this Court in the earlier paragraphs, the petitioner woulcl be entitled for an amount of Rs.15,0OO/- in addition to the ,:ompensation which was already granted under t-'' r 6 the same head loss of earnings during the period of treatment. M.A.C-M.A No.585 of Therefore, the amount of enhanced compensation comes to Rs.3,45,O38/- (Rs.3,30,O38 + Rs. 15,0O0/-).

10. In the result, appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation of Rs.3,30,038 granted by the learned Tribunal to Rs.3,45,O38/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the said amount No costs. /ITRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUW RElsrnnn SECTION OFFICER To, I The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Vlll Additional ' orlitii'il,lib",'ai Nizamabad (with records' it anv; 2. One CC to SRI' S SURENDER REDDY Advocate IOPUCI 3. Two CD CoPies MMT Y< HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S8S o12020 \naf ,f, I /11 L- 0ti J 2s6 c) !Fin',t." ,,:)1,-_ ..-, - PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. '::... '-5tuP1* ft{" '''.*'''' a - :4r..,1.' ' [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF IUARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC ELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 585 OF 2020 Between: Gitta Ravi , Jitta Ravi, S/o. Gangaram, Age. Vegetable Business and Milk Business, Rl/o.. Mandal, Nizamabad District. 45 years, Occ. Auto Driver, Shetpally Village and tvlorthad ...AppellanU Petitioner AND 1 2 Mrs. Venkata Lakshmi Madicharla and Another, W/o. Peddi Raju, Age. Major' Occ. Ownerof Lorrybearing No. AP.07.X.4019, Fl/o. H.No. 1-19' Janampet. street, Jagannadha'puram Village of Pedavegi [t/andal, West Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh. Baiai Allianz General lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Mdnbqer, Branch office, 5-6-589, Sai Anasuya Complex, Above Mahija Chit FundiC6mpany Limited, Saraswathi Nagar, Hyderabad Road, Nizamabad. (Policy No. OG-12-9995-1803-00034977, valid from 31 '03.2012 to 30.03.2013) ...ResPondents/ResPondents rr:AOO"; filed Under Section 173lof Motor Vehiiles ,Act,'1988 against the Order and , decree in M.v.o.P.No.573rof 2013 dated.: 0510212019 on'the file of the court of the Chairman, tt/otor Acciderits'Claims Tribunal - curn'' Vlll Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds..of appeal, the iuOgrLhi ;nd Oeciee of the Trib-unat and the materiat_paqqrs in the MVOP and uooi hearino the arouments of SRI S SURENDAR REDDY, Advocate for the A'ppellants aid Non A[peared for the Respondents. :" .:. ,i . ;- - *r&t" t .//:, ..-, This court doth C)rder and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motc r Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal be and herebv allowed enharrcing th_e_ compensation of 3,30,b38/_ granted by lh'e Tribunal to Rs 3,45,038twith interest @ 7.s% p.a. , That the respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount with in a period of two rnonths from the date of receipt of a copy of tris Juogme;t aftei deducting the amount if any already depositbd. is partly learned 2 J. 5 That on such cleposit, the petitioner is entifled to withdraw the said amount. 1'*f 4p1'vr oA Jo'elq?d -6"a- deqree el +t .r r-ar,rut, o.,d d-ah .ti.! 1_l Oirffunen{ {r,. ,r\t oI)-*,- r.e.\pc!1 an{ llol f-e'o f,e nr: 6vd<r "A L eo*+ g* +tfa A6eJ //TRUE COPYII SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, .; ,i'4 The Chairman, IVotoitrccidents Claims Tribunal - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge, at Nizamabad (With records, if any) .,, ?r- one cc to tSRt. s s0'rieNoen REDDY Adv6;ite 1oeucl 9. Two CD Copries MMT Y'{ *- 't: . , . :,:.,. t:t r ? jr'-'l . ,':i ;..:l . r irl' j. HIGH COURT DATED:1210312025 :. ,. ii.t DECREE MACMA.No.S8S of 2020 :a !j r.a. .i: t PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA WITHOUT COSTS , l .1,.'i, ' /4. , ,LL:r X$iil':r;il ,:,;*, 1 ,, J* <. ':ff;l '.1: ;..r;- :r,. - .i: ",:..: ,i..", '.:;. ,::..tS:...1.,.1 -r {r"r#r i' .#{.'q'. t$' ' its9.-lXl'{. ',|