The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI NAMA SRINATH RAO Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.125 7 0F 20.23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri A.V.K_S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Nama Srinath Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/ petitioner aggrieved by the order, dated 22.12.2022, passed in O.p.No.69 of 2O1g by thc learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-principal District Judge, Jagtial (for short,the TribunalJ.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant met with an accident on i 1.O5.2O 17, when the appellant was returning back from Sriramulapalli Village to Balapalli Village at about 19:OO hours, when he reached Rajeev bypass road at Jagtial, a lorry bearing No.Ap 23 U 5422 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner coming in the opposite direction dashed the motorcycle of the appellant, as a result, thc appellant lell down and sustained head injury. A case rvas registered against the lorry driver in Crime No.39 of 2OtZ under Section 337 of IpC and subsequcntly charge sheet was hled under Section 33g of lpC. The appellant suffered left temporal hemorrhagic contusion, right occipital and frontal bone fractures, closed displaced middle I /3.d fracture of right shaf[ femur and facial degloving injury. The appellant unden^,ent two \..\ 2 surgeries having been hospitalized on 12.O5.2OI7 and u,as ciischarged on

15.05.2017. In the circumstances, claim petition sas filed seeking compensation of Rs.7,0O,000/-. The appellant got exanrined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.Pl to P32. The respondents got examined R.W.1 and got marked Exs.Rl to R3. Upon examining the e;iCence adduced, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 2,69,676/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Respondent No.3 u,as exone rated from lizrtrility Aggrieved by the same. the present appeal is hled.

4. In grounds of appcal, the appellant contended tha.t fixing liability on respondent Nos. I and 2 and exonerating responder-t No.l)-insurance company is an error. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal erred in relying upon the evidence of R.W.1 and concluding that there is violation of terms and conclitirrns of the policy- [,-urther, it is ccntcnded that the grievous injurics, more particularllr, Lo the head ar(, not taken into consideration u,hile granting compensation. Also, no compensation is awarded towards fut,ure prospecLs. As such, sought r:nhancement of compensation to tl-re original claim of Rs-7,00,OOO/-.

5. During arguments in appcal, the appellant irrgued that the appellant was aged ilo ycars as on thc date of acciderrt and was doing business of selling mutton and shccp. Thc compens,rtion sought js Rs.7,OO,OOO/- but thc Tribunal has an arded Rs.2 69,676/- as no -l disability certihcate is tited. Further, it is argued that meager compensation is awarded towards transportation and pain and suffering. Lastly, the appe llalt disputed the e xoneration of insurance company white fixing liability to pay compensation only on respondent Nos l and 2. In that context, a reference is made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Cotrytany Limited a' Suorran Singht for pay and recovery and Parminder Singh a' Nelil India Ass-urance Compang Limited and others2 for taking the functional disabiliry as 1OO7o though the physical disability is at 6O%'

6. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 argued that there is a delay o[ 4O days in todging the FIR and both the owner and driver appeared bcfore the Tribunal to support the claimant. Further, the learned counsel argued that the facts of the case in Po:nninder Singh (supra 2) are not appticabte to the facts of the present case. Lastly, it is contended that the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation and therefore, there is no need to tnterfere u'ith the same. The accident occurred on 11.O5-2O17 but the complaint was given 7. on 21.O6.2O 17 i.e. after a lapse of 40 days. Immediately, after the accident, the appellant u'as taken to Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar for treatment and a[[ the family members stayed with the injured person at Karimnagar and therefore, complaint was lodged with delay' As per ' zoon(t) scc zgz ' zors(s)aLo sz (sc) 4 complaint, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.AP 23U 5422 and the same was parl<ed at the place where accident occr-rrred. As per charge sheet, when the police went to apprehend the accused, the accused surrendered before the police and voluntarily confessed that they committed the c.rffence and therefore filed charge sheet under Section 338 of IPC. The delay in lo,151ing the FIR need not be a reason to discard the truth about occurrenlo of the accident when proper explanation is given. [n the instanl case, the family members of the appellant shifted him to Apollo Hospital, Karimnagar and st r;ert r,ith hirn and theq4fnre I here u.ras nonc in tht lamilv to lodge a complaint w-ith the poiice immcdiatcly alter the :rc':ident. As per complaint, the 1orry rvas parked near the accident place and the lorry number is mentioned in the complaint. Sirrce resportc.ent Nos. I and 2 surrendered anci confessed Lo have committcd the ollerrce both before the police as well as before the Tribunal, the genuineness o[ the occurrence of accident and the liability of respondent Nos. t and 2 cartnot be disputed.

8. The appellant suffered left tcmporzrl hemorrhag c contusion, right occipital ald frontal bone fractures, close d displac,:d middie 1/ 3'a fracture of right shaft femur and Laciai cicglove injury. According to Lhe oral evidence of P.W.2, thc appellant urlder\ .ent sur(lery for CRIF with inter locking nail Femur. P.W.2 con{lrmed that Fxs-P4 ro P3,2 are issued by Apollo Hospitai. Furthcr, he deposcd that due t,; head injury, the appJlant would have suffcred lrom chewing and drlircultlv in opening -7 5 mouth, implant rernoval costs of Rs.SO,OOO / ar,d there would be difhculty in sitting and standing the appellant would be entitled to payment of Rs' 1,0O,OOO/- towards pain Since there are four grievous injuries, andsuffering.Further,hewouldbeentitledtopaymentofRs'20'00O/- towards transportation. The appellant is entitled to payment of bills markedunderExs.PTtoP28.Theappeliantsufferedfractureoffemur and head injuries and deglove injury to the face and therefore' Rs.2O,OOO/- is granted towards extra nourishment' An amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- is awarded towards future surgery for removal of implants on the basis of oral evidence of P W'2' Since there is no disability certiflcate and no percentage of disability is deposed by P'W'2-Doctor' 4O7o cannot be taken. However, on the basis of evidence of P'W'2 that the appellant would have difhculty in sitting and standing due to fracture of femur, 10% disability is taken. The appellant is shown to be doing business of supplying mutton and sheep' The notional income of an unskilled labourer is taken at Rs.8,Ooo/- per month. Therefore, as a supplier of mutton, the income of the appetlant is taken at Rs'12'0OO/- per month. Since 6 months might have been spent for recovery and resuming normal work, an amount of Rs'72,OOO/- (Rs' 12'OOO/ - x 6) is awarded to the appellant toqrards loss of earnings'

9. To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, as per age (30 years) and income of the appellant' if 40"k of Ei{-l\ 6 the income is inchrded as future prospects as per aw Ia id down in National Insurance Compang Lt<l, v. Pranag Sethi and others3, the annual income would be Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs. 1,a4,OOOl + 57,6O0/-). As per the authority in Scrta Verrnd u. Delhi Transpor'\. Corporationa, if the albresaid annual income is multiplied with relevarrt rnulirplicr of '17', the loss of future earnings of the appellant due to rlrsability at 1O%o is Rs.3,42,7201- fis.2,O1,6OO/- x 17 x 1O/ I00).

10. Further, the appellant is also cntitled to Rs.I .(),6761 towards medical expenses, Rs.2O,O00/- trru'rirds transport ir I iolr, Rs.5O,OO0/- to\r,ards future surgeries, Rs.2O,OOO/- tou'ards <.'1r'ir rLourishment, Rs. 1,O0,00O/- tou.ards pain and suffering and Rs.72,trr-O1 rowards loss of earnings. In all, lhe appellant is entitled to Rs.7,61..i!,6/ 1 1. Lastly, the Tribunal directed respondent Nos. I r Irrl 2 alone to pay the compensation u,ithout there bcing any discussion :tboul the liability of respondent No.3, who is the insurance compan] In that context, leamed counsel for the appellant rclicd upon Sutaran Singh's case (supra 1) for directing respondent No-3 to first pa\ tlrt: r'ompe nsation awarded and recover the same from thc on,ncr o[ tht offcrrding vehicle. Such an order can be given when therc is driving licent,: violation by the driver of a vehicle but the offending vchiclc itsclf has r r\ r rrance coverage. ln the instant case, there is no prool.about driving lrc-'n<:r: violatioR by 'zou 101 rzo 1sc1 4(2009) 6 S.c.c. 121 7 the lorry driver while there is insurance policy coverage to the offending lorry. In issue No. 1, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the 1orr5r is responsible for causing accide nt with rash and ne glige nt driving. Consequently, it follows that the owner and the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Thus, the compensation awarded is payable jointly and severally by respondent Nos.l to 3.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,69 ,6261 - to Rs.7,64,396/- with interest (@ 7.5o/o per annum lrom the date of petition till the date of realization. The cnhancecl compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent Nos.l to 3 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of rcccipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is cntitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any securitv. However, the appellants are directed to pay the deficit court-fec on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in rhis appeal, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/-N.SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER .ludoe at Jaotial

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.cum-Principal District 2. One"CC to S-ri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] O. On" CC to Sri Nama Srinath Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 JUDGMENT+ DECREE ivlACtUiA. N 0.1257 ot 2023 . tsI; L- Fo q i)o t) \ \s|\ ir" .,..'l *..:i ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 gt'\ 134/.21 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1257 OF 2023 Between: Chette Mallaiah @ Mallesham, S/o. Komaraiah @ Komurelly, aged 30 years, Occ. Mutton.Sheep Supplier, R/o. Balapalli Village, Jagital Mandal and Dist. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Bakarapu Rajaiah, S/o. Kanakaiah, aged.50 years, Golla, R/o. Sapthagiri Colony, Karimnagar Proper and District (Driver of Lorry bearing No.AP23-U- il22).

2. Varagandhi Ravi, S/o. Bhaskar, aged 5C years, Munnurukapu, R/o. H.No.8-4- 689, Hanuman Nagar Veedhi Ganesh Nagar. Karimnagar-5050O1 (Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP-23-U-5422).

3. HDFC ERGO General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager 3rd floor, SVS Legend, 15-1-4221A and B, SVP Main Road, Warangal-506001 (Vide Policy No.2315 2015 96665800 002 valid from 26.11.20161o 25.11.2017) ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.69 of 2018 daled 2211212023 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal Diskict Judge at Jagtial. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and lhe material papers in the appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Nama Srinath Rao, Advocate for the Respondent.3, and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 and 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed by enhanced the compensation awarded by Tribunal from Rs.2,69,6761 to Rs.7,64,3961 with interest @ 7.5Y0 per annum from the date o' petition till the date of realization.

2. That the enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondent Nos.l to 3 jointly and severally vrithin a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this .ludgment.

3. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled kr withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security.

4. That however, the appellants are directed to pa the deficit court-fee on the enhanced compensation.

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decr()e,of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this apceal. //TRUE COPY// SD/-N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum Prrncrpal District Judge at Jagtial 2. Two CD Copies SN.l/NVB HIGH COURT DATED:0710712025 DECREE MACMA.N o.1257 ot 2023 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS