The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This MACMA is frled under Section 173 of M.V.Act, 1988 bv the appellant/claimant against the order passcd by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Cum- [ Additional District Judge, Warangal, (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.716 of 20 16, dated 27 .O2.2O2O.

2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have causcd duc to rash and negligent Inan ner by the driver of the TATA Acc. [t is contencled that on OU.03.2016, petitioner was being the pillion rider, on the bike bearing No. AP-36-AH-8599 the petitioner along rr itli his frier-rd \\,ent t() Vclubelli village to purchase sheep and while rcturning from the saicl village to Kothaguda viilage and reached near Burkapalli Vaagu. 'IATA ACE vehicle bearing No.AP-20-E-0258 driven br its or"ner cum-driver i.e. rcspondent No. 1, came in opposite dirccLion in a rash and negligent 2 la4,J MACMA. No-6 19 of 2o2O manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's bike, due to which the petitioner who was pillion rider fell on the road and the petitioner sustained grievous and simple injuries all over the body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Narsampet for treatment. The petitioner \ /as talcen to Government Hospital, Narsampet, Miryalguda lor treatment. Thereafter, for better treatment the petitioner was shifted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal. The Police registered a case in Crime No.26 of 2016 against the driver of offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 and 338 oi IPC

3. The contention of the petitioner beforc the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner lr.as admitted in Government Hospital, Narsampet. For a better treatment and on advice of the doctors at Narsampet, thc pctitioner r{ras shilted to Guardian Hospital, Warangal, where Dr. B. Prabhakar, Neuro Surgeon and Dr.Upender, Plastic Surgeon conductcd operation on 1l -O3-20 16, the petitioner was discharged on 19-03-20 16. While discharging, the doctors advised him to take bed rest for three months and further advised him to take follow up treatment. The petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 1,5O,00O/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment, he sustained loss of I Rs.30,000/- towards ioss of earnings. Due to injuries sustained in the /vNR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O accident, the petitioner suffered severe headache and unable to do his regular u,ork, as such, petitioner claimed arr amount of Rs.6,00,000/- under .,'arious heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 & 2 (current and previous olr,ner of the crime vehicle) remained ex-parte. The respondent N o.3 HDtrC ERGO General Insurance Comparrl, Limited, filed a co unter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which ttre accident took place, age, avocation .rncl rrrcome ol the petitioner and submittecl that the accident occurred clr-rc to self negligence of the petitioner and further contended that the c'ornpensation claimed is excessive and pral'ed to dismiss the claim l)('tltror) -. Llasing on the pleadings and averments made by both the c'ounscls. the Iearned Tribunal framed the lolloruing issues s'hich read a s Lrnclc.r - L Whether the petitioner sustained injuries ln rnotor uehicle ttct:ident on account of rash and negligence of clnuer of TATA ACti lrcuring No. AP 20 TV 0258? 4 M\JR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to u.that ertent and from whom?

3. To uhat reliep"

6. After hearing both the parties and their rival contentions and perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal ailowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,75,O00/- along with interest (1.7.5o/,, per annum

7. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount au'arded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed bv the petitioner/claimant on the following among the other grounds that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW2 and PW3 i. e . , Doctors who advised for the future medical operation lor removing of tl-rc rod which is costing about Rs.30,000/- r,r,hich is future expenditure for treatment, but the learned Tribunal iailed to grant such arroLrnt to thc petitioner B. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sustained six fractures injuries and three simple injures i.c., Right parietal subdurai Haematoma, Fr acturc l:rtcral u:rll ol right orbit, Fracture walls of right maxillar,r' sit-tus, Soft tissr-re injurr- ot-t face and Fracture right tibia and the petitioncr r.r'as admitted in the hospital from 5 ,{ 'R.J MACMA.No.619 oJ 2O2O the accident date i.e, 08.3.2016 to 19.03.2016 and the doctors advised I bed rest for slx months, however the learned Tribunal has only awarded three months of loss of income.

9. l-earned counsel for the petitioner further contended that as on the date of accident the petitioner was hale and healthy and u,as aged about f I -rcars and used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month bv working as strepht rcl. l-earncd counsel for the appellant further submrts that the Ex. P. I to P. I 1 sl-rows that, after investigation, the police filed charge sheel against the offending vehicle i.e Tata Ace for causing grievous Lnjurit's to the petitioner by driving the crime vehicle in rash and rregligcrrt rnanner. hence, there is no dispute with regard to acciclent. rnjuncs sr-rst:rined bv the petitioner and liability on the respondents. lO. L,':Lrnt.cl corrnse'l for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal Ir:l inri .r('( ('l)tecl the lact that the petitioner sustained injuries due to the rash irncl nc!{liqent driving of the driver of Tata Ace, hos,ever miserabh laileri ti, :rrr;rrd compensation amount to the petitioner and prar-r'ed this Corrrl to t,nhanct, the compensation amount and grant .lust and fair t'ompc nsatiorl to the petitioner 6 NNR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O

11. None appeared for respondent No. 1 & 2.

12. Fleard Sri Ajag Kumar Madishettg, learned counsel lor the petitioner and Sri A.Ra,ma Krishna Reddg, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 -lnsurance Company. Pemscd the record

13. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whetler tle Tibunal has ightlg considered the claim pet[tion and grant just and fair compensation to the petitioner. ii) Whether tle petitioner i.s entitled for the enhanced compensatbn, if so, to what extent.? Point No. 1 & 2.

14. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured duc to accident occurred on

08.03.2016. The petitioner claimed that hc ri.as 'uvorking and eking out l-rrs livelihood by doing coolie work and as Shephercl and he uas earning Rs. 10,000/- per month, however no documclrtan' proof is fllecl bl the petitioner to show that the petitioner $'as carning Rs.10,000/- per month. t 5. As per Ex.PW2-Dr.B.Prabhakar, Ncuro Surgeon, Cuardiarr Multi Speciaity Hospital, Warangal deposed that the petitioner founcl (1) Right parietal subdural Haematoma (2) Fracture lateral r.vall of right orbit (3) t I l I I 7 ,IVHR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O Fracture walls of right maxillary sinus (4) Soft tissue injury on face and (5) Fracture right tibia and opined that the injury Nos. 1 to 3 are grievous in nature ancl the lnjury No.4 is simple in nature. As per PW3 Dr. Kaliprasada Rao. Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that petitioner \\'as admitted in his hospit:rl \\,ith fracture of right tibia and the said injun is grievous in naturc. lor u'hich surgery was done with insertion of steel rod on 2.1.03.2016 ancl he rvas discharged on 29.O3.2016 with an ad",ice to take bed rest ftlr t hree months, however the petitioner took treatment under .{ros{r'asret' scheme. which is free of cost; and that in case of necessitr'. the stc('l rocl flxcd by them shall be removed by operating him again for rvhich thcv ma1, charge Rs.3O,O00/-.

16. lt is cliclr:nl lj'orn thc records and pleading that the petitioner has sustainecl three gricvous and as per Ex.P3-Charge Sheet, it is eviclcr-rt that thc I)ctitioncr x'ct'ived injures in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have causccl clric to rash and negligent marrner by the TATA Ace. The Tribunarl qrantccl tls. 15.000/ towards loss of earning, however as pcr PW3 Doctor r,r ho arlvice to take bed rest for three months and [<>r rcmoving rlt(' stc('l roci tlxed, the petitioner needs another one month time hcal rhe inluries. Thc petitioner claimed that he was eking out his B I{AIR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O livelihood by doing coolie work and as Shepherd and he was earning Rs"10,000/- per month. In Latha Wadhwa us. State of Bihart, the Honble Apex Court held that even when there is no proof of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence this Court is of the opinion that notional income of the petitioner can be taken as (rr Rs. 10,O00/ per month and the loss of income for four months u,ould c()mc to Rs.40,000/- (Rs.10O00 x 4 months) 17 . The petitioner was admitted as inpatient lrom 24.03.20'16 to 29 .O3.2OI4 for the treatment. The petitioner took treatment under 'Aroqr :rsri Scheme', and the Tribuna-l granted comperlsation ol Rs.1.00,000/ towards medical expenses appears to bc rczrsonablc. Holit:r'er, the Tribunal has not granted Rs.30,00O/ f<rr removal of steel ro<l :rs suggcsted by PW3-Doctor. Considering, the evidcncc of PW.3, thrs Court is inclined to grant Rs.30,000/- towards 'future lreotntenl' 1,3. Thc learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,2O,O00/ to$'ards threc srievorrs injuries and Rs.10,000/- simple injury, rvhich appcars to be rcarsonirble and needs no interference. 1 2001(8) SCC 197 I 9 ,u!lR.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2O 1

19. The learnecl Tribunal has also granted Rs.25,000/- towards 'pain and sufferance and Rs.5,000/' tou,ards 'transportation charges', wh.rch this Court feel the sard amount granted by the learned Tribunal is just and fair compensation and needs no interference.

20. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the lau, laid dou.n b1, thc Horrble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. Iam of thl o1;inion that the petitioner is entitled to \ enhancement of compcnsarion as modihed and recalculated as above and given in the table br:lorr lor easy reference. Hcad [.oss of lnr:ome Si le I ntun C rievou s Medicines Fu ture Treat rnarl' _ Trgqgportat krn C ha r*t'' Pain ancl StrIli-rrrn,, Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrlved at by ttris Court L r .;,ooo/ - ! u.000 1.r0,000 l,00,ooo ;. ol)0 r i.ooo/ - .+o,ooo/- 1O,OO0/- t,2o,ooo / - 1,00,000/- 3O,OOO/- s,o0o/- 25,OOO I - l -li)ll l 2,7s,OOO / - 3,30,OOO/-

21. In the result, thr .11)t)cal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from I1s.2.75.00O/ to Rs.3,3O,OOO/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Rupees only) with the interest of 7.57o on the enhanced arrl()unt ol' compensation from the date of petition.till the date of realizarion. The rcspondents are directed to deposit the said 10 IVA'R.J MACMA.No.619 of 2O2o alnount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alreadv deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitione r is permitted to u-ithdrau, the same without furnishing any suretv. There shall bc no ordcr as to costs

22. Misccllaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closcd sD/- A.V.S PRASAD DEPUTY RTlGISTRAR - //TRUE COPY// s TION OFFICER To. Judge \A/arangal.

1. The chairman. Motor Accidents claims Tribunal - cum- | - Additional District 2 One CC to SRt AJAY KUMAR MADISETTY Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRl. A. RAMA KRTSHNA REDDy Advocate'toeUc-1 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.619 ol 2020 STATE :. 3sO t $lt t tts .'.' .,:- '../ !i PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t ,^^ ( l)

0. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD 134431 FRIDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 619 OF 2020 Between: Sangi Devaraju, S/o. Sampath, aged about 21 years. occ. Labour and Shepherd, r/o. Bhadilapelli Village, Kothaguda Mandal, Warangal District, presently residing at Hunter Hanamkonda, Warangal City and District. AND ...APPELLANT/PET|T|ONER

1. Anumula ramana Reddy, S/o. Venkat Reddy. aged. Major, occ. Present owner-cum-driver of the crime vehicle, r/o. H. No. 16-16, Satyanarayanapuram Village, Yeltandu Mandal, Khammam District. 2 Rapolu Uday Kumar, S/o. Ramaiah, aged. Major, occ. Present owner of the crime vehicle, r/o. H. No. 11-3-12, Gandhi Nagar, Paloncha, Khammam District.

3. HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Company Limited, represented by its Regional Manager, Regional Office at 6th Floor, Leela Business Park, Andheri, lrula Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. (Respondent No 1 and 2 are not necessary partreS*or*r"r*a"poNDENTs Appeal filed under Section 173 of M V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 2710212020 passed in MV OP No. 716 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Cum- | - Additional District Judge, Warangal. 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 and upon hearing the argument of SRI AJAY KUMAR MADISHETTY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 and SRl. A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.3. I / This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed. I

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs-2,75,000/- to Rs.3,30,0001 (Rupees Three Lakhs Thirty Thousand Rupees only) with the interest of 7.5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

3. That the respondents be and hereby 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 receipt of a copy of this judgment. 4, That on such deposit by the respondents, the petitioner be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal sD/- A.V.S PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR lfirue Copyll To

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna um- I- Additional District SECTION OFFICER Judge, Warangal.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:29/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.619 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS O{^f; 4""