Aditya Deshpande v. AppellanU3d

Counsel for the Appellant in MACMA and Respondent No.1 in Cross Objections : Sri Manjari S Gant Counsel for the Respondent No.3 in MACMA and- Appellant in Cross Objections : Sri N.J. Sunil Kurr; r Counsel for the Respondents No.'l & 2: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT l ,1 7 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT I{YDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY I.A.No.1 of 2025 inl and M .A.C.M.A.No. 42 of 2OL9 And Cross Oblections (X-Obil No.5l of 2Ol9 DATE: 09.1 2.2025 Betweeu: Aditya Deshpande Manthri Kishan and three others AND COMMON JUDGMENT: Appellant Respondents Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and decree dated 17.oz.2olg passed in o.p.No.777 of 2OI2 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_Cum_ Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short "the TribunalJ, the claimant fited MACMA.N o.42 of 2O 19 seeklng enhancement arong with I.A.N.. 1 of 2025 to receive the additional medical bills and receipts for past and ongoing treatment and care, as additiona.l evidence in the appeal and mark as Exs,A-22 to A_27, whereas the Insurance Company filed the Cross Objection (X_ Obj).No.151 of 2Ot9 seeking to set aside the aforesaid judgment and decree. CHADA vrrAyA 3','if,i!il:iXlHl?^ BHASKAR REDDYDAIE' l: 2 \

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parli s are referred arrayed in the subject O P No 777 of ! ( 12 bclore the to as they "vere Tribunal- The brief facts ofthe case are that on 01-01.20i l,

3. AM, the claimant, who was a B.Tech (second-year proceeding on a motorcycle bearing registration No l at about I :30 student, was ,-29 AC-3244 from Nagaram village towards Hyderabad, along rvitlr his friend as pillion rider. When they reached near Andhra Bank, I z garam village, a car bearing registration No.AP-29-J-861 1, coming Lr direction, driven by respondent No.1 in rash and lt5 the opposite igent manncr and at high speed dashed the motor cycle, due to whi; r thc claimant sustained. grievous injuries. Immediately, the claimanl /as first taken to Vijaya Hospital, Nagaram Village, but due to lac < of specialized medical facilities, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, iecunderabad, where he underwent MRI, CT scans, X-rays, and was iagnosed witl'r spinal dislocation and disc prolapse with resultant qr ldriplegia and surgery on spinal cord was advised. l,ater, on 04 [ .20i1 he was admitted to Osmaria General Hospital, where sprr e surgery was i performed between 04.O1.2011 and 08.01-2011 arc he remaincd under inpatient treatment till i7.O1.2011. Therealt r, continuous physiotherapy, acupuncture, rehabilitation, and r( 3ular medical management remained necessary. A charge-sheet ,,as also filed against the driver of the offending car in Crime No.ll rf 2011 under CHADA Vi i'A BHASKTR I ]DY "n,rsrisunarur 3 Section 338 IPC. Stating that claimant is the eldest son of his parents and due to accident, he is rendered. permanently bed_ridden necessitating life-long care, continuous nursing/attendant services, pliysiotherapy, special diet and other medical care, he hled the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, under Section r66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.6O,OO,000/_ in Iump-sum towards general and special damages.

4. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 2 r.e., driver and owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. Respondent No.3_ insurer filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.35,98,145/-, distributed under heads including loss of income, medical expenses, attendant charges, pain and suffering and future medical expenses, with interest al 7yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.l to 3 jointly and severally.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant vehemently contended that due to the accident, the claimant not only suffered a grievous spinal-cord injury resulting in complete spinal cord damage and permanent quadriplegia, but also the medical records, MRI/CT scans, hospital discharge summaries, and the disabilitv ccrtificate CHADA VIJAYA 9T;"'IHilil,:I"i,i7^ BHASKAR REDDY a'ter'0r5 Do,63330 a 4 issued by the competent medical board show thi11 lhe injury is permanent and thc claimant rs now totally disabled, b: I ridden, rvith no control ovcr lirnbs or bodily functions, requiring 1i :long medical care, nursing. catheterization and other consumables, r hysiotherapy, special dret, and attendant-care; the compensation z r ardt:d by thc 'l'ribunal at Rs.35,98,145/- is grossly inadequate r view of the pcrmanent and li[e-tong nature of his disability and -. e conseqlient lilelong care and treatment needs; the medical bi-lr, and recejpts, particularly those now submitted along with I.A No.l o l025 $,ere not properly considercd, and that future medical experrr :s, attendant care, special coDsumables (catheters, diapers, cr ssing). extra rourishnlelrt, physiotherapy, transportation for r :dical r.isits, nursing charges, etc., must be reckoned in full; th,, Tribunat :rlso failed to adequately compensate non-pecuniary Iosses ncluding pain and suffcring, loss of normal life, loss of amenities, I I s of marrragc prospects, loss ol expectation of life, mental agorl and loss of livelihood; and as such, learned counsel prayed for (r hancement of compensation.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel ;lr earing for thc Insurance Company contended that the medical bills < taimed by thc claimant, especially those newly furnished under LA 'lo.1 of 2025, asserting some treatments, consumables or rehabilila ive measures are excessive, inflated or not genuinely necessitated t\ the accident; CHADA Vi A A BHASKAI REDDY 5 as regards quantum of compensation, the Tribunal taking into consideration the fact that at the time of accident, the claimant was a student with no established income, has rightly assessed the notional income and accordingly granted just and farr compensation; and awarding large non-pecuniary damages (for pain and suffering, Ioss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects, Ioss of expectation of life) must be based on credible evidence and cannot be granted on broad or exaggerated assumptions.

7. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunat that the accident occurred due to the rash and neghgent driving o[ the crime vehicle bearing registration No.AP-29-J-8611 and that the driver, owner and insurer of the said vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

8. So far as assessment of quantum of compensation is concerned, the medical evidence on record, including discharge summaries, MRI/CT scans, hospital bills, physiotherapy records, disabiliq, certificate issued by the medical board (confirming permanent spinal cord injury and quadriplegia), and now the additional medical bills submitted along with I.A.No.1 of 2025 show that the claimant has suffered complete and permanent disability, is bed-ridden, without control over limbs or bladder/bowel (requiring catheterization, diapers, dressing, frequent nursing care, physiotherapy, special diet, etc.), and will need life-long care and treatment. However, the CHADAVIJAYA,;*;,i'*"im"; EHASKAR REDDy D.'.:202e r6,13 24 'r.oe .- x - -rEFitl 'l \ \ 6 Tribunal laik'ct to appreciate the full magnitudc, sevcri[r and permanence oI the disability, and the realistic ongoi r i ne,:ds of the claimant and grantcd only tts,7,02,I45/- towards n,:, ical expcnses. Taking into consideration the additional medical tri 1 and rec(,ipts filed by the claimant under I.A.No. 1 of 2025, lmountrng to Rs.1,32,198/-, this Court is satished that they represl rt genuine and necessary past lnedical expenditure and ongoing reatment/care expenses cor)scqLrerlt to the injuries sustained in rl e accident, and they arc accordingly accepted. However, having rr S lrd to fu! ther pecuniary netds and the requirement for ongoing trci t nenr and r:irrc, this Court clcr:ms it .rppropdate to grant an additior r I lurnp-su rn of Rs.10,00,000/ (including the amount quantified u r ler ].A.No 1 of 2025) towards medical and related expenses over ,nd :rbove the amount a',r,arclecl l)y the Tribunal, ie., Rs.7,02,1451 Tht: amounts awarded by the Tribunal under other heads o compensation, including Ioss oi income {during treatment), pern: nent disability compensation, parn & suffering, attendant charges future medical allowance (as fixed earlier), etc., cannot be faulted. 1'l r s, tht: clairrant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.45,98,145/- (la .35,98,145/- + Rs.1O,00,O00/-) (rounding off to Rs.46,O0,000/-)

9. Coming to the rate of interest, as the Hon'blc SL :renre Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd.. us Mannqt Johal CHAD^, I \YA :;i1,,;,i:iir-:iii^ BHASKA I EDDY 1 o;nd, otherst and in several subsequent decisions held that the reasonable rate of interest to be awarded in motor accident claim cases shall be 7.5"k per annum, this Court is of the opinion that the rate o[ interest awarded by the Tribunal in the instant case is on the lower side and the same requires modification. 10- In the result, LA.No.1 of 2025 in MACMA.No.42 of 2019 is disposed of and MACMA.No.42 of 2019 is partly allowed, by enhancrng the compensation awarded by the Tribrrnal from Rs.35,98,145/- to Rs.46,00,000/- with interest (41 7 57o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and rest of the tcrrns and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered Cross Objection (X-Obj) No.51 of 2Ol9 is dismissed. No ordcr as to costs. As :r sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall I { To, stancl closed lp1[ Zoli 9 tn+1 'i3;T.*XHf HtE,EiRiI //TRUE COPY'/ ECTION OFFICER a i a i{"qr, (with records,'13lll

1. The Chairman, MAOT-cum-Principal District Judge' oo**,e lopuc] 3. 3H 33 [ .'j',Y,'Kli':,il;;, ]o'"fii"'loeucr 4. Two CD CoPies Kam/PSL nga Reddy District at HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 \ I I l-1 t c,) 1l t\A t]7 2 -2. \ * .l- ,.<\ ' -..-. \::S t.i\.4"-?. a:=:2'- COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE l.A.No.l ot 2025 in/and MACMA.N o.42 o1, Z01g And Cross Objections (X-Obj) No.51 ot 2019 l.A.No.1 ot 20251S DTSPOSED OF MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED & cRoss oBJECTION (X-OBJ) tS DtSMIStiED o I \, a l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 32e61 TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY l.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and M.A.C.M.A.No: 42 OF 2019 And Cross Obiections (X-Obi) No.51 of 2019 MACMA.No.42 of 2019 Between: Aditya Deshpande, S/o. Sunil Deshpande, Age.27 years, Occ: Nil, Rl/o.H.No.27- 16122155. West Sree Krishna Nagar, Neredment, Ranga Reddy Diskict. ...Appellant AND

1. Manthri Kishan, S/o. Balaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Driver, Rio. Mallapur Village (old), Near Mallpur High School, Ranga Reddy District.

2. A. Kanaka Reddy, S/o. Rajendar Reddy, Age: Adult, Occ: Owner of Tata lndica DLG V2 Car, Bearing its No.AP-29J-8611, R/o. H.No.3-13/6211, Surya Nagar, Mallapur, RR Drstrict., Ranga Reddy District.

3. M/s The Orrental lnsurance Company Limited, CBO 8 Branch, Hyderabad Rep, by its Branch Manager, #4-9-6, Surya Towers, HMT Nagar, ADJ to NTR Kutter, Nacharam, Main Road, Hyderabad. Policy No 431 305131 1201 1 17 17 Y alid from 30.06. 20 1 0 1o 29.06.20 1 1 Cross Obiectio ns. N o.51 of 2019 ...Respondents Between: M/s The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, CBO I Branch, Hyderabad Rep. by its Branch Manager, #4-9-6, Surya Towers, HMT Nagar, ADJ to NTR Kutter, Nacharam, Main Road, Hyderabad Now being Rep. by the Manager, N.Kalpana Snehalatha Complex, Green Land Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. a ...AppellanU3'd Respondent AND

1. Aditya Qeshpande, S/o. Sunil Deshpande, Age: 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.H. No.27-'16122y55, West Sree Krishna Nagar, Neredment, Ranga Reddy District. ... RespondenUAppellant

2. Manthri Kishan, Sio. Balaiah, Age: 25 years, Occ: Driver, RJo- Mallapur Village (old), Near Mallpur High School, Ranga Reddy District. .. . ResPondelr /1 "r ResPondent 3. A. Kanaka Reddy, S/o. Rajendar Reddy, Age: Adult, Orr Owner of,Tata lndica DLG V2 car, Bearing its No.AP-29J-861 1 , R/o H Nc 3-13/6211 ' Surya Nagar, Mallapur, RR District., Ranga Reddy District' ...ResPondetl'2nd ResPondent (Respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary) Appeal under Section 173 of M.V.Act and Cross-Objectic r s under order.41 -'77 of 2012 daled Rule 22'of C.P.C., against the order and decree in M V O P No It:-Ol -ZOfi on the fie of the Court of the Chairman, MACT-cur -Principal District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L. B Nagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusrrr( the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the r taterial papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri Manjari S Gart Advocate for the AppellantinMACMAandRespondentNo'linCrossobjectionl;andSriN'J'Sunil Kumar, Advocate for Respondent No.3 in MACMA and Appellant i cross objections and None appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2 in MACMA' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the l.A No.1 of 2025 in MACMA.No 42 of 2019 re and hereby is disPosed of;

2.ThattheCrossobjection(X-obt)No.51of2019beandhr;-.byisdismissed;

3.ThattheMACMA'No.42of20lgbeandherebyispartlya|llwedbyenhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs 35,98' 1451 to RS.46,o0,ooO/- with interest @ 7.SYo per annum from th€ date of petition till the date of realization and rest of the terms and condit ( 1s imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered; and 4. That there shall be no order as to costs. SD/- NI IAWAHAR REDDY ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR /TTRUE COPY// 1 ;ECTION OFFICER To, l.TheChairman,MACT-cum-PrincipalDistrictJudge,Rar';aReddyDistrictat L B. Nagar 2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0911212025 \ 0 DECREE !.A.No.1 of 2025 in/and MACMA.No.42 of 1019 And Gross Objections (X-Obj) No.51 of 2019 !.A.No.1 ot 20251S DISPOSED OF MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED & CROSS OBJECTION (X-OBJ) lS DISMISS:D } +",^