The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRI. Y.S.YELLA NAND GUPTA Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Counsel for the Respondent No.2: C BUCHI REDDY The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA M.A.C.M.A.No.1962 of 2OtO JUDGMENT: This zrppeal is filed against Lhc Ordet dated i6.08.20i0 in O.P.No. 1712 of 2003 passed by the learned Chairrnan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII-Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C)), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

2. Tht: pctition uide O.I,.No. 77 12 of 2OO3 r,n e s filed by one D.Ganga Prasad, claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,0O O / - for the injuries sustair-red by him in a road acciderrt occurred on

13.1 1.20(13. He examined himselt as p.W. 1 and also got examinec P.W.2 on his behatt and marked trxs.A1 to A7 on his behalf and IJx.B1 Insurancc pol.icy rvas marked o-r behalf of the responde.rts and the trial Courl also got mark,:d Ex. C 1 case shcet. The trial Court after considering the oral and documen -ary. cvidence on record, directed the rer;poncient No.2 to pay an amount ol Rs.41.4OO/ - @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization, to appeilant / pctitioner and recover the same from t1e respondent No. 1. Aggrieved by the said award, petitioner the rein preferred t :.f:Iiytx t:1'atltttt 2 the present appeal, seeking to enhance the compcnsation amount granted by the trial Court

3. The bricf facts of thc case are lhat on 13.11.2003, the appeltant herein along with others were travelling in the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 25 U 3734 from Varni to Bodhan. When they reached near Akbarnagar at about 8:OO PM, the driver of the auto rickshaw, driven it in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control of the vehicle, due to which it turncd turlle. As a result, the petitioner and other inmates of auto rickshar.l suslained r nj urics.

4. The learncd Counsel for ihe appellant/ petilioner mainly contended that the compensation granted by the trial Court is very meager. The petitioner had sustained several fractures, undergone surgery and incurred rnedical expenses of more than Rs. 1,0O,OO0/ Due Lo accident, the future earnings and amenilies of the petitioner are completely affected ard he had also suffered permanent disability. Therefore,. requested the Court to enhance the compensation amount granted by the trial Court. -)

5. Lezrrned Counsel for the respondent l{o.2/Insurance CompanS, stated that six persons met with accicient and sustaine(l injuries, but thc policy u.as existing only lbr three members, as such the trial Court clearly observed that respondent No.2/lnsurance Company has to recover the compensation amount from respondent No., the lowest amounts payable to any of the injured includingl the appellant as per arLd out of all the awards that may be pa:;sed, inciuding the award in this case, if amounts are payable or paid to more than thr,:e injured persons and au,ards are passed. As the appellant herein did not challenge the liability of respondent No.2, the Order of the trial Court regarding liabili[' holds good and it net:ds no interfererrce.

6. Regarding enhancement of compensation, lo prove the injuries sustained by the appellant/ petitioner, he got examined the doctor n,ho treated him as P.W.2. P.W.2 categorically stated that on 1:1.11.2OO3, he examined the appellant/ pr:titioner and found the following inj uries: i) Posterior dislocation of teft elbou.t, ii) Fracture left clctuicLe, iii) Birnolleolar fracture of ight ankle, iu) Frtrcture of nght ulna, u) Laceration ouer lefi shoulder and, ui) Laccration of ouer ight fore arm. 4 \ He also stated that injuries 1 to 4 are grievous in nature and injuries 5 and 6 are simple injuries. He further stated that appellant/ petitioner was treated as inpatient from 13.11.2OO3 to 19.1 1.2003. He issued Ex.A3-Medical certilicate and maintained Ex.C1-case sheet. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant/ petitioner, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.65,00O/ - towa rds injuries.

7. Perusal of the record shows that the appellant was aged about 29 years and rvas doing agriculture and biscuit business and earning Rs. 1O,OO0/- per month, but he has not examined any witness or filed any incomc proof to substantiate his version. Therefore, this Court considering the age and nature of the work done by the appellant, finds it reasonable to take the income of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month.

8. Appellant/ petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was hospitalized, as such he might have suffered pain and suffering and thus this Court finds it reasonable to grant an amount of Rs.20,00O/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2O,O0O/- for loss of amenities, Rs. 10,000/- for transportation, Rs. 1O,OOO/- for attendant charges, Rs. 10,0O0/- for extra nourishment and . .:. .i "::.::asa-.ei';**@ ,/,/ l I 5 Rs.20,O()0/- towards medical expenses. Apart from that he could not attend duties for at least 8 monthsl, as such this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to grarit an amount of Rs.40,O00/ - towards loss of income.

9. TLrerefore, the appellant/ petitioner is entrtled for the compen..;ation in the following terms 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Injuries Loss of Income Pain and Suffering Loss of Amenities Extra Nourishment Transportation Attendant charges Medical Expenses TOTAL F:s.65,000/ - F1s.40,000/ - F:s.20,000/ - F:s.20,000/ - F:s.10,000/- F:s.10,000/- F:s.10,0OO/- F|s.20,000/- Rsi.1,95,OOO/- 10- In the result, the appeal is partly allowe I by enhancing the cornpensation amount granted by the tr ia1 Court from Rs.45,41i0l- to Rs.1,95,000/- (Rupees One Lekh Ninety Five Thousand Only) with intere st at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from thr: date of filing the petition till the date of realization. The Order of the trial Court regarding liability hold s good, as such respondent No.2/insurance Company is directel t.o deposit the entire amount witl-lin a period of one month fi-om the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and recover Irom respondent 6 No.1 as stated by the trial Court. On such deposit, appellant/ petitioner is permitted to withdraw the said amount along with the interest accrued on it. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/ M.OSMAN ALI BAIG STANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER to,., . ,n" chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-Vr-Additionar District and Sessions Judge (F T'C ), Nizamabad at Bodhan' 2 One CC to SRl. Y S.YELLA NAND GUPTA Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI C BUCHI REDDY Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies GE/gh g&- HIGH COURT DATED:09/0412025 .r:i'i .-'xt ,,5r'', ,{ . .,:, i JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1962 oI 2010 .,r 0 {6 i, i-r l: -.; \, , : t \ - , .!/ ,_ rj ::.i]l - t'' \" -'.. ' PARTLY ALLWOING THE MAMCA WITH OUT COSTS fP @ ;TN; IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3208 I WEDNESDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA MOTO R ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1962 OF 2010 Between: DYAWANPALLY GANGA PRASAD, S/o Ramulu, aged 25 years, Occ: Biscuits Busrness and Agriculture R/o. Bodhan Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. AND ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

1. Syed Mohamood Hussain, S/o. Syed Ahmed Hussain, Aged [\Iajor, Occ Owner of Auto Rickshaw No.AP 25-U-3734 R/o.H.No.1 1 -1-8128711. Chandrashekar Colony, Nizamabad.

2. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp.Z.P.Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad (Police No 61 1900/31/02102458 valid from 15.11.2002 to 14.11 2003). ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, aggrieved by the Judgement dated 16.08.2010 in O.P. No.'17'l2l2OO3 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VllADJ), Nizamabad at Bodhan. 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 arguments of SRI. Y.S.YELLA NAND GUPTA , Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1 and SRl. C BUCHI REDDY appeared for Respondent No.2. rtl- This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be: and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount grar ted by the trial Court from Rs.45,450/- to Rs.1 ,95,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 7.Soh per annum front the date of fi ng the petition till the date of realization.

2. fhat the Order of the trial Court regarding liabil ty holds good, and respondent No.2/insurance Company is hereby directeJ to deposit the entire amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and recover from respondent 6 No.'1 as stateJ by the kial Court.

3. That on such deposit, AppellanUPetitioner rs hereby permitted to withdraw the said amount along with the interest accrued on it.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. lff rue Copyll To SD/- M.OSMAN ALI BAIG EJANT REGISTRAR \ 1 I I BECTION OFFICER 'l . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vll-,\dditional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Nizamabad at Bodhan.

2. Two CD Copies (fr GE HIGH GOURT DATED:09/0412025 DECREE MACMA.No.1962 ot 2010 PARTLY ALLWOING THE MAMCA WITH OUT COS S -,.-.\. flr @ ilTA"r