The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appclJa irt ltrsur''n: Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehi : es Act, 1988 (for short ('the Act, 1988), aggrieved bv the orC. and decree, dated 06.03.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.429 r:i 2Ot'1 bv the Motor Accidenl s Ciaims Tribunal-cum VII Add I onirl District and Sessions Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short. t re Tribunal')

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties le hereinerfter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribr-Lr r 1

3. The brief facts of the case are as under: (i) That the petitioner hled a claim p 'tition r,tnder Section 166 of the Act, 1988 claiming cir I pensation of Rs.50,00,0001 for the injuries sustained b1'Ir rn in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 22.O9.2Of it is stated that on 22.O9.2014 while the petitioner u'as st rnding beside the road near Ashok Talkies Center-cum-Rai<: Lur Raod and waiting for an auto, one Tipper bearing No.AP 1 ) 7979 ciriven b_v its driver in a rash and negligent mann: - and dashed 2 against him. As a result, the petitioner sustaine d fracture to his both legs and other inluries a-11 over the body

4. Basing on a c(',rnplaint, a case in Crime No.2O9 of 20 14 was registered against the driver r,f the Tipper for the offence punishable under section 338 of I. P.C

5. It is further stated that immediatell' after the accident, the petitioner r,vas shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where he took treatment as in patienr uide I.P.No.421939 and on the same day he undenvent arr operation to his right thigh arrd he spent Rs.3,0O,O00/- for his treatment. It is further stated that due to the injuries he has sulfered lot of mental agony apart from loss of income. Therefore, the petitioner filed the claim-petition against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the ou,ner and insurer of the Tipper, respectively.

6. Before the Tribuna-l, respondent No. I filed counter stating that the accident took place due to negligence of the petitioner and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of Tipper. It is further stated that the vehicle n'as insured with respondent No.2 and the policy rl'as in force and 7 if any competrsation is awarded by f he Tribun: the salne is Iitrble to be paid by respondent No.2 alone

7. Rcspondent No.2 tlleC counter denying I )e avernlents made in tne claim-petition and it is specilica Iy contended that the accident occurred due to the negl qen<:e o{' the petitioner and there is no negligence on the p: r of the driver of the Tipper. It is also denied the age ald ncome o1- thc petitioner. It is further denied the injuries stt tained b-r, the petitioner, treatment undergone by him in tl- r hospital and also the expenses incurred b1' him. lt is ftrrtl .r statecl that compensation claimed is excessive and pral'e'c .o dismiss thc claim- petition

8. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribrr ral framcd the following issues

1. Whether the petitioner sustained inj tries in rnotor accident, due to rash and negligent c r iving of crime vehicle i.e., Tipper bearing No.AP 13 T 7lt 9?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for r r mpensalion as prayed? If so against whom?

3. To u'hat relieP 4

9. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as P!V. I and he got examined the doctors, who tre.:ted him, as P.Ws.2 to 3 ar-r d got marked Exs.Al to Al2. On be,:aii cr the respondents, no oral evidence lvas adduced but Exs.B I and 82 u'ere marked

10. After considering the pleadings and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal has helci that the said accident was occurred onl_y due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Tipper and au.arded an amount of Rs.7,55,000/ with interest fti, 7.5o1, per annum from the date of petition till the date of rea-lization payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally

11. Aggrieved by the said order and decree passed by the Tribuna-l, the present appeal is hled by the Insurance Company on the following grounds:- (i) that there was no negligence on the part ol the driver of the Tipper and therefore, the insurer is not liabie to pay the compensation. (ii) that the learned Tribunal took the disability ai 2ct'h which is on the higher side. 5 (iii) that the learned Tribunal took ttrr: rcome of the petitioner at Rs.5,O00/- inspile of there bei : t no credible evidence and zriso applied multiplier '17' lt'hr,: is on higher side ar, arrrirding compensation for pain , rtd suffer ing attendaxt charges, extra nourishment, loss of lcome, futurc nredication ald future discomfort at Rs.1,OC, )0O/ each is ',i'ithout anv b:rsis (iv) that the interest awarded is also on : gher side and pray'ed to allos' the appeal.

12. Having l.reard Sri B. Papa Reddy, learned ounsel lbr thc appellant and Mr.Mohd. Abdul Haleem, l,: Lrned counsel :rppearing for respondent No. 1. Nonr: zrppeared for respondent No.2

13. After having perused the entire material on record, the main grievance of the appellant before this ()r urt is that the learned Tribunal without any basis has arvarded Rs.i,00,0OO/- for loss of income, Rs.1,0i )OO/- towards future medical charges and Rs. 1,00,00 I t - for future discomfort and Rs.1,0O ,OOO I - for attendant charges and Rs.1,00,000/- torvards pain and suffering. \dmittedl-v, the 6 petiticner had sustained head in;ury, degloving inyury ol right thigh and muhiple laceration over the inguinal region rvith fracture in that of Ieft femur middle 1/3rd w.ith bilateral pubic rami fractures operateci th.ic. 22 .09 .20 14 , 27 .O9 .20 | 4 and O4.lO.2Ol4. On 18.lO.2Ol4 he ',,.,as also operated for removai ol implants for orthofix for fracture of left femur. He a-lso undenvent one more surgery on 1 I . I 1 .20 1'4 rvith SSG debridement lor same limb. After 9 mon[hs thev have done open reduction inter locking nail to left lemur and bone gralting lor same limb. He also underwent surgery for urethral stricture under supervision of Urolog,' department on

15.09.2015. He also relied upon EX.A6, copy ol discharge summaries of SVS Hospital, Ex.A 12-copy of case sheet ald Ex.A2 wound certihcate. The petitioner also got examined P.W.4, who was working AS Urologist in SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, who specihcally stated about the treatment provided to the petitioner. He has done surgery over the strictures of urethra on 15.09.2015. Further, P.W.3, who is Orthopedic Surgeon was examined. He spoke about the treatment undergone by the petitioner in SVS Medical College Further, to prove the disability for the injuries by the 7 petitioner, P.W.2 , u.ho is the panel doctor nf [) .jtrict M<:c]ical Board r'r'as examined. P. W.2 stated that the ,etitioncr had sustained 35(11, of disability ard he issued Il :.A.7 Cisabilitv cc'r tif,, :L[. :ertif,r'rr-rg the disability of the petitio:- ]r on acLrount of post traumalic sequel to left lower limb lr.it]r hip and knee restricted movements as 35o1, and due to the ;r rove dis:rbility the petitioncr has to u'alk w'ith difficulty. Th,ugfi disabilitv certificate shorvs that the petitioner rad sustained 35"/u ol the disabilitl,, but the learned Tribunal : rnsidering the age and nature of the job which he used to do. has taken the disability at 25o/o and assessed the Ioss ,, ealnings on account of the disabilitv and au'arded Rs.2,55,i )O/- Though there rs no appeal preferred questioning th: same b1' the petitioner, this Court is of the opinion th; the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at 2:; L arrd rightly taken the incomc of the petitioner at Rs.S,O(tr l- per month anci au,arded Rs.2,55,000/- tou.ards loss of ir:ome ri'hich is just and fair compensation and the sar 1e needs no interference. Considering the nature of the in-r ries sustained and the prolonged treatment undergone by thr tetitioner for a period of one year, this Court is of the op nion that the amount ',vhich is awarded towards pain and suffering, future - discomfort, loss of income and future income at Rs. i.00 lac each appears to be jusr and fair compensation a^td the same ne-:d- ria ;nterference.

14. As regards the compensation of Rs. 1 .O0 lakh tou'ards attendant charges and extra nourishment, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that no proof has been fiied b-v the petitioner to show that he had engaged an attendant ald that they have incurred the sard amou nt tou'ards attendant charges. But considering the fact that the petitioner sustained injuries to both the legs and also the treatment undergone by the petitioner and hospitalized for a ionsiderable period, awarding the attendant charges at Rs.1O,O00/ per month for a period of six months, \d'hich comes to Rs.60,000/- is just and reasonable ald appropriate and Rs.20,0OO l- for extra nourishment. So also, there was no proof or evidence placed to show that the petitioner has to undergo future medication but the medical record shows that the petitioner has to undergo surgeries for removal of the implants. Considering the circumstarces stated by P.Ws.3 and 4 and also the discharge summa,ries, this Court is of the 9 opinion tltat t rcn thor-rgh there is no such : cdical advi(re reports are pi:rc:cd l;efore the Court, but c: tsiclering the nature of injur-res ald the tr 3atment obtained, : ris Court i-rold that an anrount ol Rs.60.O00/ - rv,,,-ri.. be t r rsonable and appropriate in pl:rce of Rs. 1.00 lakh u,hich u z s anvarde d by the iearned Trrbunal under the head of future rr ,ldication

15. Keeping the arnount, anarded by the le; ned Tribunal intact, this Court is of the opinion that the or ler passed by the learnecl Tliburnal needs to be interfered oni to the extent au.arding of compensation torvards medical reatment alld attendant charges by reducing the same fronr I s.1.00 iakh to Rs.6O,00O/ - respectivelv. Thus in all, the petitioner 1S entitled to onl,r Rs.6,95.00O/- i6. As per tl-rc decision of the Apex Court .t Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersr the petitt, ner is entitled to interest lti.7.St)/o per annum on the compel.r ation ari'arded b1' the Tribunal from the date of petition t li realization,. Hence, the intcrest granted by the Tribunal 1ii \oh per arnum is reduced Lo 7 .5o/o per annum. i 20t3er:.r )ro.] =2()ll{4) ALT3i 10 17 Accordingly, the appeal is partlv allo'.r,ed by reducing the compensation from Rs.7,55,000/ to Rs.6,95,000/ together r[ith interest at 7.5'h,' per annum from the date of petition till tlre l.ai. cr.ealization. The appellant is directed to depo:;: the said amount together rvith costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if an1', u ithin two months from the date of receipt of a copy' of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner/ claimalt is entitled to rrithdrari' the entire compensation without furnishing ant security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal sha,ll stand closed. sd/-c. DEEP A SISTANT R RAR //TRUE COPY// To, '1 . The lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vll A Judge, Mahabubnagar. SECTION OFFICER al District & Sessions

2. One CC to SRI BURUJU PAPA REDDY, Advocate IOPUC]

3. One CC to SRI MOHD ABDUL HALEEM, Advocate [OPUC] NVB

4. Two CD CoPies w HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 t'* * JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N0.1251 ot 2018 () .1 HE SIN l g riB 2076 z c) 'tgo4'r-nr * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WIT'I{OUT COSTS <eN 6'u( k_. €t'ti)" [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, IHE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR AC CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1251 OF 2018 Between: Shriram General lnsurance Company, represented by the Legal Officer, Legal Office, No 3-6-517.4th floor, Sal Dutta Arcade, Flat No.401- 403, Street No 6, Himayathnagar Hyderabad - 500029 (Policy No.100031311141682070, valid from 21-02-2014 lo 20-02-2015 issued at Jaipur) ...AppellanURespondent No.2 AND '1 . Giddem Narender, S/o G.Balraj, age 27 yea.s, Occupation presently Nil, H.No.3-9-102, Near l\,4odel Basic High School, Gandhinagar, Mahbubnagar' 2. Golla Venkateshg, S/o. G.Chennaiah, age [\4ajor, owner of Tipperbearing No AP13T-7379, Rl/o. H.No.1-72i 1 , Jeenugurala Village, Devarkadra Mandal, lr,4ahbubnagar District. ...Respondents/Petitioners Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.429 of 2014 dated.06/03/2018 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District & Sessions Judge' It4ahabubnagar. This appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Buruju Papa Reddy, Advocate Appellant and Sri Mohd Abudul Haleem, Advocate, for the Respondent No.1, and none appeared for the respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the co-mpensation from Rs.7'55,0001 to Rs.6,95'0O01 together with intereit at 7.Sfiper annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. Tiat the Appellant is directed to deposit the said amcr rt togelher with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount alr: tdy deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of tl is judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner/claimant rs entiflerl o withdraw the entire compensation without furnishing any security.

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Courl hall stands confirmed in all other respects: and

5. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal sD/- c.DEEPtbA //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vll Addition I Judge, Mahabubnagar. ^'= i't]lE9,i,ffiR $grror.r district & Sessions oFFtcER

2. Two CD Copies NVB V+- HIGH COURT DATED:2610812025 DECREE MACMA.No.1251 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WIT{OUT COSTS CC\ I-i Ps"