The High Court · 2025

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 30-12-2005 passed in O.P.No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribu nal-cu m-'lhe Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. Between: Shafi Ahamed, S/o.Sardar Ahammed, Age:33 years, Occ: Vartha Reporter R/o 4-2-8211, Rajampet Village, Sangareddy Mandal, Medak D strict. ...AppellanUC laimant AND 1 2 Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Not know to the appellant, Age:Major, Occ. Owneq of the Car GAY-9996. R/o. 19-2-1034, Jahanuma, Hyderabad. The Divisional Manager, United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer, 16-10-27-105. 2no Floor, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Res pondents lA NO: 1 OF 2022 Petition uncler Order 6 Rule 17 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, tl-re High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to amend the claim from Rs.20,00,000/- to Rs. 45,00,000/- as compensation in the Appeal. lA NO: 2 OF 2022 Petition under Order 7 Rule 14 r/w Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petrtion, tl'e High Court may be pleased to permit the Petitioner to file some additional Xerox documents in support of the appeal vide MACMA (SR). No. 5806 of 2013 for proper adjudication of the case. Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Palle Sriharinath Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT /1 HONOURABLE SR! JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A. N 0.943 0F 2006 AND M.A.C.M.A .No.69 OF 2022 COMM N JUDGM NT: I have heard Mr.Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellanUpetitioner in MACMA No.69 of 2022and respondent No'1 in MACMA No.943 of 2006 and Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellanUinsurer/respondent No'2 in MACMA No.943 of 2006 and none appeared for the respondent No2 in MACMA No.69 of 2022.

2. The M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2006 has been filed by the insurer/respondent No.2 contesting the liability and quantum of compensation and the M.A.C.M A.No.69 of 2Q22 was preferred by the claim petitioner aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the decree and order daled 3O'12'2005 in OP No'149 of 2OO2 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy'

3. Thus both the appeals are heard together and are being decided in this common judgment.

4. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to with their status before the Tribunal as petitioner and respondent' 2 NTR,J l,lACIvlAs : 43 2006&69_2022

5. Brief y stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner filed claim seelling compensation of Rs.20 lakhs for the grievous injuries suffered in a motor accident dated 13.01 .2001 . The Tribunal partly allowed the petition and granted compensation of Rs.13,15,000/- with interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till realization.

6. Learrred counsel for the petitioner would contend ihat in the accident the petitioner suffered permanent paraplegia and is undergoing continuous medical treatment. The petitioner codlt not even perfo.m routine natural chores without assistance. He became pc'rmanently disabled. Further unabating medical treatment is causing severe financial hardship and the Court below should havr-. considered the pathetic physical condition of the petitioner and should have awarded just compensation. Thus prayed for irtervention.

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondenVinsurer would contend that the Tribunal ought to have considered r;ontributory negligence and should have apportioned the liability between the vehicles. Further pleaded that the Tribunal erred in fixing income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month without any proof. That apart the physiotherapy 3 NTR,J MACMAS 943 2f/l6&69 2o)) cardslEx.A-z4 and the CDR hospital bills/Ex.A_g are not reflecting the payments. Thus granting medical bills and also amount for future medicar expenditure is erroneous and unsustainabre under

8. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the materials on record.

9. The point arises for determination is: "Whether the Tibunat had properly assessed ne iliitity and just com pe n sation? "

10. ln regard to liability, the petitioner,s case is that on 13.01.2001 while he was proceeding on his scooter with another person at Kandi village, one car driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner dashed the scooter and caused severe injuries all over his body. The testimony of ihe petitionertpW_1 and the police record i.e. first information reporUEx.A_1 and charge sheeUEx.A-2 are demonstrating that the accident had occurred due to the negligent driving of the car. The respondenUinsurer except denial suggestions failed to place any other material to consider otherwise. ln this factuar position, the respondent's contention that ".--€Etributory negligence between the vehicles involved in the : iaitJ 4 NIR,] lvlAclvlAs 943_2006&69_2022 accident falls insignificant. Therefore the Tribunal's conclusion that the owner and insurer of the crime carlrespondents are liable to pay compensation deserves affirmation '11. ln re-qard to compensation, the petitioner as PW-' deposed that he had suffered head injury, fracture of left leg, fracture of left side ribs, friacture of spinal cord in the accident. The evidence of doctors/PWs.6, 8 and 9, owner of physiotherapy centre/pW-S and Assistant Manger of CDR Hospital/PW-7 are establishing the facts the petitioner suffering dislocation of vertibra, , fractures of fibs in the accident resulting in paraplegia, urinary discharge difficulties with infection and bed sores and medical treatment including the surgeries undergone.

12. These aforenoted aspects are demonstratng that after the accident the petitioner is confined to bed and unable to move on his own and proving the petitioner's complete occupational disability.

13. The Tribunal basing on date of birth in driving licence/Ex.A-28 rightly concluded his age by the date of the accident as 33 years. Further as per the petitioner he is lournalisVpress reporter and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month 5 NTR.] MACr.1As,94l-2m6&59 2022 The Tribunal considering the wages of relevant period had taken Rs.4,500/- per month. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was journalist and would certainly a better income than the manual labourer as such counting the probabilities, taking Rs.6,0001 as monthly income is found appropriate'

14. lt is also well settled that future prospects in the cases of self employed shall be included in assessment of compensation even in injury cases. Having regard to the age and occupation of the petitioner 4Oo/o of the income towards future prospects has'io be added. Thus the monthly income of the petitioner would be Rs.8,4001 and annual income at Rs.1,00,8001. lS.lfthismultiplicandismultipliedwiththerelevantmultiplierto the age of the petitioner i.e. 16, the total comes to Rs"l6'12,8001' This amount shall be awarded towards loss of future income'

16. The petitioner claimed Rs.2,00,0001 towards medical expenditure. ln this regard, the Assistant Manger of CDR Hospital was examined as PW-7. He deposed that as per case sheeUEx'A- 43 the petitioner took treatment in their hospital for about six months and Ex.A-8 is the final bill for Rs'3,03,1041 towards hospitalization and the petitioner paid Rs'29,000/- and rest of the I I ri;i &: 5 t.lTR,] MACr.4As 943_2006&69_2022 amount has to be settled by the insurance company. ln addition, the doctor/PW-9 deposed that the petitioner was admitted in MNR Medical College Hospital for a period of two months for treatment of tvvo bedsores over the buttocks which resulted pressure over arca of spinal injury and they have issued discharge summary/Ex.A-'10 and validated the bills/Exs:A-11 and A_12. Further examined the physiotherapisUpW-S in regard to treatment of physiotherapy to the petitioner and validated Exs:A_24 to Ex.A-26 bills. On this evidence, the Tribunal has awqrded Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.50,000/_ for future medi,:al expenses. However having regard to the physical condition ol the petitioner and possible future medial expenses, enhancing the amount under these heads to Rs.6,00,000r is found proper.

17. Furthelr the condition of the petitioner is making out the requirement of attendant all along. Though appointment of attendant is not specifically pleaded, considering the fact that the family memtrers would be helping him as attendants and for such services under the head of aftendant charges Rs.4,0Cr,000/- is granted. 7 NIR,] HACHAS-943-2006&69 2022

18. For continuous pain and suffering the compensation awarded under this head is enhanced to Rs.1,50,0001. The petitioner's condition would definitely require extra nourishment and at times transportation for medical treatment and this possible intangible affect the enjoyment of amenities of life. Thus' under these three heads granting Rs.1 ,00,0001 each is found appropriate- Accordingly ordered 't9. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled for compensation as Sl.No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Description Amount awarded (in rupees) Loss of future earnings due to disabili Future medical exPenditure Attendant charges Pain and suffering Extra nourishment Transportation charges Loss of amenities TOTAL 16,12,800t- 6,00,000/- 4,00,000/- 1,50,000/- 't,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 1,00,000/- 30,62,800/- I I

20. Resultantly, the petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.30,62,800/- (Rupees thirty lakhs sixty two thousand and eight . ii. :?| ,,. 8 MACMAS_943_2006&69_2022 NlR.J hundred orrly) with interest at 7.Sok per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The respondent No.2/insurer is directed to deposit ther differential compensation amount within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the petitiont-.r is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. 21 . Accordingly, the decree and order daled 30.12.2005 in Op No.149 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, stands modified. , !

22. ln the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.69 of 2022 fited by the petitioner is allowed with costs and the M.A.C.M.A.No.943 of 2006 filed by the insurer/respondent No.2 is dismissed without costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions if any, stands closed. To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/- I. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /'ir \- \.l $ecr ION OFFICER

1. The Chairrnan, Motor Vehicles Accidents Clainrs Tribunal-cum-The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. (with records, rf any)

2. One CC to lvlr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to lr,lr. Palle Sriharinath Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam,/gh I rlr!.-j-rrt \ *i,. w ,':- ' :r-ifu HIGH COURT DATED:1 010112025 I e STArt O6 . !:\ ( 19 l1l't T1l1 r1) '( I t c ,: r,l, i 1-l\' ,",/ ,,i/ - .:/' COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMoN DEcREE MACMA.No.943 of 2000 AND MACMA No.69 ot 2022 MACMA No,943 of 2006 tS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS MACMA No,69 of 20ZZ tS ALLOWED WITH COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 132171 FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A.No : 943 of 2006 AND M.A.C.M.A.No.69 of 2022 M.A.C.M A.No.943 of 2006 Between: The Divisional I\/anag 230-105,2n0 Floor, M er, United lndia lnsurance Co.Ltd., Divisional Offlce, 16-10- alakpet, Hyderabad. .AppellanUResPondent No.2 AND 1 2 Shafi Ahamed, S/o.Sardar Ahammed, Age:33-years, Occ: !a{ha Reporter [ib. a-)-sri, 'nrimpet Village, Sangareddv Mandal, Medak District Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Not know to the appellant, Age:Major, Occ: Owner of the ii;;'Gdi:9996, nlo i-s-2-tos+, Jahanuma, Hvderabari ( Near Falaknuma) R2 dismissed vide Court Order daled 17-2-2017. ' ...ResPondenUResPondentNo'1 M.A.C.M.A.N o.69 o12022 Between: Shafi Ahamed, S/o.Sardar Ahammed, Age:33 yealg' 9gciyq+l? Reporter R/o' ili:diil, n"-iii. pJi Vit tig Sins ared o/Mand-al, I\Ieda k Di strict ", ...AppellanUClaimant AND 1 Mohd. Habeeb, S/o Not know to the appellant, Age:Major, Oic: Owner of the Car GAY-9996, Ryo. 19-2-'1034, Jahanuma, Hyderabad' 2 TheDivisionalManaqer,UnitedlndialnsuranceCo.Ltd.,Divisionalofficer, 16-10-27 -105. 2nd Fi-oor, Malakpet, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/ResPondents Appeals f iled under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree datr:d 30-12-2005 passed in o.p.No.149 of 2oo2 on the file of the court of the chairman, Motor Vehicres Accidents craims Trirrunar-cum-The Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. A. Ramak.rishna Reddy, AdvocEte for the appellant in MACMA No.943 of 2006 and Mr. palle sriharinath, Advocate for the Respondent No-'r in MACMA No.943 of 2006 ard Appeflant in MACMA No.69 of 2022 and None Appeared for the Respondent Nr.2 in MACMA No.69 of 2022 arrd in MACMA No.943 of 2006. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the M.A.c.M.A.No.943 of 2006 fired by the insurer/respondent No.2 be and hereby is dismissed without costs; 2 That the IVr A. c M.A. No.69 of 2022 fred by the petitioner be and hereby is allowed witr costs, 3 That the petitioner be and hereby is awarded compensation of Rs.30,62,g00i- (Rupees th rty Iakhs sixty two thousand and eight hundred onry) with interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date of the petition till realization;

4. That the respondent No,2/insurer be and hereby is directed to deposrt the differentiar compensation amount within four weeks from the date of recerpt of a copy of this order;

5. That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amount; 6 That the de,:ree and order dated 30-12-2005 in op N0.149 of 2,102 on the fire of the cherirman, I\irotor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-prilcipar District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy be and hereby stands modified; T That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribuna shal stand conflrmed ir all other aspects; and

8. That the appeflants be and hereby are entifled costs of Rs. 115i- to be paid by respondents. MEMO RANDUM OF COSTS MACMA.No.69 ot2022 S.No. Particulars 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 for decree of the Lower Court Stam s for Vakalatnama Stam used for the Memo/Court fee Stam s for Jud ment of the Lower Court Stam Value of Co Advocate's fee Fee Certiflcate not filed Batta and Pos Translation and Printin TOTAL Stam Char e e er used for enclosures Rs. Ps. 05.00 '10.00

01.00 01.00 38.00 00.00 60.00 00.00 115.00 //TRUE COPY// Sd/. T. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-The 1' Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:1 010112025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.943 of 2006 AND MACMA No.69 ot Z0Z2 MACMA No.943 of 2006 lS DISMISSED WITHOUT COSTS MACMA No.69 of 202215 ALLOWED WITH COSTS