The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EAOA M.A.C.M.A.NO.660 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 06.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1065 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribunal is that on

24.06.2004, the petitioner along with her husband and family members hired a Toyota Qualis bearing No.AP-1 1-W-4259 to go to Tirupathi and while they were travelling in the said Qualis, at about 4:00 a.m., the said vehicle reached Mamandoor Forest on Renigunta Kodur Road, mean while, the driver of the said Qualis had driven it in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the lorry, as a result, front portion of the Qualis got completely damaged and some of the occupants have died on the spot, while others including the petitioner suffered grievous injuries. lmmediately, she was taken to SCRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi and later on she was 2 ETD,J MACMA No.660 2021 shifted to Unity Centre for Orthopaedics, Narayangr,rr a, Hyderabad. She incurred huge medical expenses and tr ts, sought a compensation of Rs.2,50,0001

4. The respondent No.1/owner of eualis ha:; filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to ie occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the r eceased. lt is further contended that in case if any compensatir n is granted, respcndent l.Jo.2/lnsurance Compan.y would be iable to pay compensation and that respondent No.1 is not at a liable to pay compensation, since his vehicle is insured with respon lent No.2.

5. The respondent No.2/insurer has filed counte. denying the averments of the petition with regai-d to the occir .rence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the decease J. lt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Thus, th, rir company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Tribur al has framed the following issues:-

2. 'Whether the accident took place due to the rash a1 | negtigent driving of the Vehicle bearing No.Mp_11-W_4259 caLs ng injuries to the pehtione12 Whether the petitioner is entitted for compensation? l. o. ta whal amount and from whom? €TDJ MACMA No.66O 2021

3. To what relief?" 3

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A1 1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B1 was marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,16,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

9. Heard the submissions of Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel for respondent No.2

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the tribunal ought to have awarded higher amounts towards compensation, but the tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in a proper perspective and has awarded a very meager amounts as compensation. He further argued that the petitioner sustained 40% disability and that the disability certificate was also marked as Ex.A9 before the tribunal, but the tribunal has considered it to be only 5olo. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation with regard to loss of future earnings and also towards transportation charges and other heads 4 ETD,I MACMA No.660_2021

11. Learned counsel for the responcjents on the, rther hand has submitted that the tribunal has righfly granted compr) rsation and that there is no need to enhance the same. The tribunal has considered all the aspects, while awarding compensation and hus, prayed to confirm the order and decree passed by the tribunal

12. Based on the above rival submission, this (:r urt frames the follovring points foi consideration:_

1. Whethcr the claimant is enti\ed lo enhancement ol ( )mpensation. , Y!::!::^r!"^Order and Decree passed by the t ibunat nced any u tttrt lct trt tLtt a ') e. ..).^t u vvt tctL tei et a -^t:-r^ f^ '

13. Point No. 1:- a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by th,: quantum of compensation granted by the tribunal. b) She asserted that she used to do tailoring ra,r rk apart from attending to her house hold duties and thus, she Lt ed to earn a monthly income of Rs.6,000/-, and that she suffered gr -5vous injuries and underwent acute pain and suffering during t re course of treatment c) PW2lDr. T. pr-asad who is the professor i nd HOD of orthopaedic Department at Gandhi Medicar cor r ge, he has ETD,J MACMA NO.66O 2021 deposed that he has examined the petitioner on 20.03.2019 and 5 found that she sustained the following injuries i.e., she had fractures of humorous of right arm and fractures soft of Alna right forearm and was earlier treated at Unity Centre for Orthopaedics where she was operated by using plates and screws for both fractures' He further deposed that he observed stiffness in the shoulder and elbow of the petitioner and thus calculated the disability based on Mc bride scale and he opined that she sustained 40% disability, which is partial and permanent in nature. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that he has seen the petitioner after 15 years of the accident He has examined her in 2019, while the accident occurred in 2004 The petitioner has filed the wound certificate under Ex'A3 which discloses that the petitioner sustained fracture of neck of humorous and fracture of third of shaft of humorous and it is opined to be a grievous injury, but there are several other complaints of pain in the wrist, elbow and spine as per the wound certificate. d) The discharge summary under Ex-AS pertains to Unity Centre for Orthopaedics, which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on

29.06.2004 and discharged on 02.07.2004, she was treated for laceration to the scalp, fracture of right surgical neck and mid shaft humorous and fracture to her proximal 1/3'd ulna. lt further discloses the nature of treatment underwent by the petitioner at the said ETD,,I MACMA No.660 2021 6 hospital. Ex.A6 is the outpatient record of t nity Centre for Orthopaedics pertaining to different dates in the nonths of June, July and September. Ex.A7 is a set of medical bills I ;sued by Seetha Ram Nursing Home, wherein she underwent invt:: tigations. There are several other bills filed by her and Ex.Ag is the reatment record of Genesis Orthopaedic Services under Dr. T. t) asad/pW2, she approached him in the year ZOlg and he has endcr;ed observation nrade on physical examination and has issueo certificate showing that she sustained 40% disabilii movements in shoulder, eltrow and right fore arm. e) The above evidence of pW2 and the disch:rge summary coupled with Exs.AB and A9 shows the injuries s rffered by the petitioners ancJ the nature of treatment underwent by her, she must have sustained acute pain and suffering during he period of recovery. Hence, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is granterr towards pain due to loss of Ex.A9/disabitity and suffering. f) Wth regard to the ioss of earnings, the pW1 ass _=i_ted that she used to do tailoring work. S) lt is the common observation in the society th;i many ladies do undertake tailoring work at home, apart from attending to household works. ln the absence of any proof, sorr e amount of guess work is required in assessing the income of the c eceased. ln ? the present case, the tribunal has assessed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.6,000/-, which is found to be just and 7 ETD,J MACMA No.660-2021 reasonable. h) Owing to the injuries sustained by her' she must have taken three months to recover' Hence, an amount of Rs' 18'000i- awarded towards loss of earnings by the tribunal which is held to be just and reasonable i) With regard to the medical expenses' several medical bills are filed under Ex.A7 to an exlent of Rs'7'5301 issued by Seetha Ram Nursing Home and it also discloses that there are several other bills which were not considered pertaining to the subsequent years of 2010-2011 . The statement of medical bills file shows that it comes to a total of Rs.21,567/- out of which Rs'6871 and Rs.700 are deducted which comes to a total of Rs'20,180/- The two bills pertaining to 2019 and 2011 are deleted, which have no nexus to the period of treatment underwent by her, apart from which the total amount comes to an extent of Rs'20,180/-' the same is granted towards medical expenses lt is common knowledge that the petitioner must have j) incurrqd..-other incidental expenses such as transportation' extra- nourishment etc., Therefore an amount of Rs'10'000/- under each ETD,.J MACMA No.O6O_2021 8 is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/_ towards r> ltra_nourishment, Rs.'10,000/- towards transportation, Rs..t0,000/_ .( wards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/_ towards incidental exp(-rtses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above r -.ads. Thus, an amount of R..OO,teO/- is awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidentar expenses. k) With regard to the loss of future earnings, thr, Jisability stat-,r by PW2 coupled with Ex.A9 reveals that she ;ustained 40% disabiiity. ln view of the dicta laid down in Raj t<.r,mar Vs. Ajay Kumarl , 40o/o of disability is incurred to the right foit:, ,rm, hence it is scaled to 20% with regard to the whore body ;rr d the ross of earnings is scaied down to 1O%. Thedisability certifir;, rte is issued in the year 2019 by Dr T. Prasad, the age shown ir the disability certificate is ,52' years, while the accident occurred ir 2OO4,so she must have been aged 37 years as on the dat,: of accident. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects the monthly rncome would be Rs.6,000/_ x 4OVo = Rs.2,400 wtr :h comes to Rs.8,400/-. The loss of future earnings would be R;8,400 x12 = Rs.1,00,800 x 1Oo/o x 15= Rs.1,51,200/_. I2ol | (lo scc a43 l) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation 9 ETD,J MACMA No.660-2021 amounts: , Compensation u shock, Pain and nder the head 'in.iuries, suffering

2. J, i4. i. , Loss of ea s due to disabili Loss of future eami Compensation under ihe head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, exira-nourtshment and other incidental --.elP,e199i Total 50,0001 l 18 000/- 51,200t 60,180/- I Rs.2 79,380'- m) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.2,79,380/- while the Tribunal has granted that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.'l ,16,000/- .Thus, it is held enhancement of comPensation Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- ln view of the finding arrived at Point No'f it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation' This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,79,380/- from that of Rs'1'16'0001 that is ) \ awarded bY the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly'

15. Point No.3:- 10 ETD,J MACMA No.660 2021 ln the result, M.A.C.M.A filed by the claimanr s pa(Iy allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 06.04.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.1065 of 2013 passed by the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief Judge, (f: rst Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, by enhancing the cor pensation from Rs.1, 16,000/- to Rs.2,79,2g0l_ and the enhan: :d amount of compensation shall carry interest @- 7 so/o pe!- annL,r r from the date of claim petition tilr rearization. However, the interest r rr rhe period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellants shall pay :t e deficit Court fee. The respondents are directed to deposit the com6"n."r;on amount with accrued interest within a period of two rr tnths from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deduct .rg the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appella rt is enti.ed to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any secu,i y. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thir; appeal, shall stand closed. SI) - ( .1)t;l,PlKA ASSii T \\ I'RI--(;ISI'RAR /ITRUE COPYII \i\i I I S:CTION OFFICER To 1 The chairman, Motor Accidgnt craims Tribunar-cum-xrV r.r ditionar chref ^ J_udge (Fast Track 9Sge, City Cirii C"r.t, ijvoerabad. 2 one cc to sRt ru e.sucl5 kiinlnR il;;:;ia topucl 3 One CC to SRt, s A v RAtNAr,inorf"jiJib.p.utr- -, )i 4. Two CD Cooies ,V GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:26/0812025 .l JUDGMENT MACMA.No.660 of 2021 ./2,,t.': ,'r'. '' z./ o-) r.J' {(ii !.'ir t,i.'1. :., .t .....'. \ \rl E ST,i !l )I'^,- - --, 11 \. ..i, . .:'! ,': t j:-: -- l:::-i ; 'l - _;, - PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSI S @,1 il $ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 TUESDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCID ENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 660 OF 2021 Between: :I1l..y,lruTt^ W* Lg!g, Medicherta..Nars_imtu.-@_ M.Narsimha Sharma, Aged aoour.4b yrs. ucc. Iartoring, R/o. H. No..l _4_42915, SRL Colony, Kotha[et, Saroornagar, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND '1 M Rlsheed_Baig. and another. s/o.M.Mahboob Baig Aged.Malor, occ.Business Rio P No. 122, HtG, phase-V, Vanastatipura. UyOeiiOiO_ZO. a'O*n;;;iQr;td' Vehicle No.AP'l 1 W4249)

2. United lndia lnsurance co Ltd.. Rep. by its Regional lvtanaqer. 3rd partv claim Hub, 2nd Ftoor, Church Building, Titakhoad, tiyderaOad. (Policy No 051500/3i103/92994 varid upto 12.02.200s poricv issued at Do- Vll, Unrted lndia Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 06.04.2021 passed in IVlVop No. 1065/2013 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-xlv Additional chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower cou( and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of sRl N. ASHOK KUMAR, Advocate for the Appellants and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and sRl s.A.v.RATNAM, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follow's: 1 That the Ailotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby parfly allowed

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhancec from Rs 1'16'0001 to Rs.2,79,280/- and the enhanced amount of compens;i tion shall carry interest @7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petitioh ti I realization and that the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

3. That the appellants be and hereby shall pay the defir:i Court fee' 4. That the respondents be and hereby are d't:cted to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within r period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgrr rnt after deducting the amount if anY alreadY dePosited

5. That on such deposit by the respondents' the ap::llant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishi-r I any security'

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeil lfirue CoPYll To SD/- C.DEEPIKA . SSIS IANT RTGISTRAR \ \ 1 I J SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-: rm-XlV Additlonal Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabe J'

2. Two CD CoPies GEiPSL lil, HIGH COURT DATED:25/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.660 ot 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 l, $ It