The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV ActJ assailing the award passed by the Motor Acc:dents Claims Tribunal (V Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Cou.rt) at Nizamabad (for short 'TribunalJ, in O.P.No.166 of 2005 datel 22.O4.2OO8.

2. Appellant herein is the petitioner and respondent Nos.l and 2 herein are the respondents before the Tribunal.

3. Appellant - petitioner has filed an application under Section 166(1)(a) of the MV Act and Rule 455 of the A.P.Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, claiming compensation of Rs.24,2O,OOO/- but restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,OOO/- with interest at the rate of 24o/o per annum payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. On 25.09.2OO2 the appellant - petitioner along with others were tra'v'elling in the auto rickshaw bearing No.AP-1-U-175 and they reached Mopal village shivar at about 03.00 p.ffi., the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-8655 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the auto \ / BRMR, J MACMA.No.3595 of 2008 rickshaw, due to which the auto rickshaw turned turtle. The appellant - petitioner and other inmates of the auto rickshaw sustained multiple and grievous injuries and he sustained fractures to his left shoulder clavicle, right thigh femur, injuries on head, chest, hands and on other parts of the body, he was shifted to government head quarters hospital, Nizamabad, later he took treatment in private nursing home and has spent Rs.8O,OOO/- towards medical expenses, still he is undergoing treatment with the private doctors. Appellant - petitioner was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. In total the appellant - petitioner has claimed Rs.24,2O,OOO/- but he has restricted his claim to Rs.2,00,0OO/ -.

5.1 Respondent No.1 - owner of the crime vehicle is set ex parte before the Tribunal.

5.2 Respondent No.2 - Insurance Company liled its written statement and denied the accident, age, income and health condition of the appellant - petitioner, further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle do not possess valid driving license to drive the vehicle and the OP is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., owner and driver of the auto rickshaw and there is a delay of five days in lodging the complaint before the police. The Tribunal has framed the following issues:

6. _/ BRMR, J MACMA.No.3595 of 2008

1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor bearing No.AP-23-T-8655 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? [f so, u,hat amount and from whom which of the respondents?

3. To rvhat relieP 7 . App:llant petitioner is examined PW 1; PW2- Dr.T.Narsing Rao and got Earked Exs.A1 to A5. Respondent No.2 did not lecl any evidence but got marked Ex.B1-insurance policy.

8. The Tribunal after going through the evidence of the appellant r,r'ith that of the documents marked thereon, has partly allowed ttre OP by awarding compensation of Rs.45,O00/- payable by the r:espondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per annum from the <late of petition tlll realization of the award.

9.1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal failed to decide the quantum of compensation and instead of au,arding Rs.2,OO,OOO/- has awarded only Rs.45,0OO/-. The appellant has proved that he sustained fracture to left shoulder clavicle, lracture of right thigh femur and on other parts of the body. Further, the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the compens;etion amount, which is meager and prayed to allow the appeal. e4 417 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3595 of 2008

9.2 Learned counsel for the appellant has filed calculation memo showing different heads under which the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,26,0OOl-.

10. It is mentioned in the cause title of the appeal that the respondent No.1 is not necessary party as he did not contest before the Tribunal. i 1. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and awarded reasonable compensation, does not require interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the same.

12. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No.2, perused the record. 13, Now the point for consideration is: whether award passed by the Tribunal in OP.NO.166 of 20O5 dated 22.O4.2OO8 requires interference of this Court or not, if so, what is the appropriate compensation to be awarded?

14. The compensation claimed by the appellant - petitioner in the O.P is as under: I. For Special Damages: a) b) Loss of earnings from the date of the accident and future earnings Transportation charges to the hospital and medical expenses incurred thereon :: Rs.15,O0,000-OO (Rs.fifteen lakhs only) :: Rs. 1, 10,000-00 (Rs.one lakh ten thousand only) ,- c) For extra nourishment s/7 BRMR, J MACMA.No.3595 of 2008 : Rs.1O,O00-00 (Rs. ten thousand only) II. For Gene::al Damages: a) b) Cornpensation for suf'ering Cornpensation for di*rbilitv pain and permanent :: Rs.3,O0,000-OO (Rs.three lakhs onl1,) :: Rs.5,00,000-OO (Rs.hve lakhs only) TO:]AL Rs.24,20,000-OO [Rs.tu,ent5r fi>ur lakhs twenty thousand only] But the petitioner is claiming only Rs.2,00,O0O/- (Rs.two lakhs only) in lumpsum towards compensation.

15. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under: Sl.No I 2 3 Head Medical expenses, extra diet and attendance Pain and suffering Loss of income Total Amount Rs.18,OO0/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.9,OO0/- Rs.45,O00/- Five Thousand

16. The memo of calculation filed by the appellant claiming enhancem3nt of compensation is as under: Two fractures each 30,OOO x 2 Rs.60,OOO/- Medical E>:penses Pain and suffering Transporting Extra nourishment Attendant Charges Rs.18,OOO/- Rs.18,OOO1- Rs.10,OOO/- Rs.10,0OO/- Rs.10,0OO/- Entitled Total Rs.1,26,O00/- 617 , BRMR,J MACMA.No.3595 of 2OO8

17. The Tribunal has taken the income of the appellant petitioner as Rs. LOO / - per day and arrived that for 9O days he has suffered pain due to fractures and the loss of income is Rs.9,OOO/-- The Tribunal has not considered that the appellant - petitioner has suffered injuries i.e., (i) fracture of clavicle right and (ii) fracture of right femur, which are grievous in nature as per the evidence of PW2-Dr.T.Narsing Rao with that of Ex.A3. Hence the appellant is entitled for compensation for the fractures at the rate of Rs.3O,000/- per injury.

18. The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: Sl.No. Name of the Head Income Loss of income (for 9O days) T\vo fractures (Rs.30,OOO /- for each fracture) Medical expenses, Fxtra diet and attendant charges Pain and suffering Compensation awarded by this Court Rs.3O00/- per month (Rs.100/- per day) Rs.9,000/- Rs.6O,000/- Rs.18,00O/- Rs.18,000/- 1 2 3 4 5 6 Transportation charges Rs.1O,0OO/- Total Rs.1,15,OOO/-

19. In the result, MACMA.No.3595 of 2008 is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as urTder: \ BRMR, J MACMA.No.3595 of 2008 a) Tht: impugned award dated 22.O4.2OO1, passed in I O.['.No.166 of 2OOS, stands modified. b) Thr: compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.45,000/ - is enhanced to Rs. I , 15,000/ _ together witir interest at the rate of 7.50/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment. c) Thr: respondents are hereby directed to deposit the aw:rrded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of thir; judgment. d) Appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. As'a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. Nr> costs. SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR I'TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Cl'airman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-v Additional District Judge, (l:TC) Nizamabad.

2. One CC to SRI Y.S.YELLANAND GUPTA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI C.V.RAJEEVA REDDY Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CC Copies Spare KVR/nvb \+ I -..:--:==@l 'f:'l '.'f;d .-..,* r{ '1 / srA 11!{[H?ffi Z G1 .L t5 o u * HIGH COI'RT DATED i2t;11U2425 JUDGME[.IT+DECREE MACMA.ltlo.3595 of 2008 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT GOSTS G ,t.^ &#' [ 3448 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF OCTOBER TVVO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCE US APPEAL NO: 3595 OF 2008 Between: , Rayakanti Gangadhar, S/o. Late Giranna Milk Business R/o.Quilla Road, Nizamabad. ...APPELLANT(S) AND

1. A.Narayana, S/o.Mallaiah, Aged Major Owner of Tractor Bearing No.AP 23-T 8655, R/o.H.No.19-123, Behind HP Petrol Pump, Siddipet District.

2. The New lndia Assuance Company Limited, rep by its Branch Manager O/o. Branch Office Opp.lOB Weekly Market Road, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. (R1 remained Exeparte before the Tribunal no notices is necessary vide Court order dated 27.08.2016 ...Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.166 of 2005 dated 22.04.2008 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-v Additional District Judge,(FTC) Nizamabad. 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 argument of Sri Y.S.Yellanand dupta, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri C.V.Rajeeva Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and Respondent No.1 remain exparte. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly Allowed, by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.45,000/- to Rs. ,.'..!51 To, 1 ,15,0001- together with interest at the rate of 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of filing tl're petition till payment.

2. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs by less the amount already 6raid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a ' copy of tlris Judgment.

3. That the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the entire amount with cost:; and interest thereon without furnishing security.

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. i, SD/.M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. The Ch;rirman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-v Additional District Judge,(FTC) Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies Spare KVR/nvb Vy / / , HIGH COURT DATED i25l1Al2O25 DECREE MACMA.iNo.3S9S of 2008 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT GOSTS .{@ \ X6,