The High Court · 2025

immediately, he was admitted in R.R.Hospital, Medchal and after first-aid, he was shifted to BBR Super Speciality Hospital, Balanagar, Secunderabad and thereafter, he was treated as in-patient from 26.01.2015 to O4.O2.2O15 and he underwent surgery on 30.01.2015 and undergoing periodical check-ups. The police registered a case in Cr.No.28 of 2OI5 3 rsrB., XACXA rlo,STO olzUX) under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle bearing No. AP-23-T -7 479.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunrrl was that he became permanently disabled due to fractun:s sustained by him and that he was a private employee working as delivery boy in Express BC Courier Services and he used to earn Rs.18,OOO/- per month and he got bright future and in all, he claimed an amount of Rs. 15,C,0,O0O/- towards compensation with interest @ 24o/o per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization.

4. Br:fore the learned Tribunal, Respondent No. 1/owner - cum-dr:.ver of the DCM van bearing No.AP-23-T-7479 remainr:d ex-parte. The respondent No.2 The Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, frled their counter- aflidavil, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further 4 IVI\IR,J UACUA tilo-67O of 2O2O \ contended that the accident took place due to the negligent driving of the petitioner and the petitioner has to prove that he got valid driving license to drive the motorcycle and further contended that the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.AP-28- BL-3858 is also necessary party to the petition and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under: "i) whether tle accident took place due to the. rash and negligent daAW of DCM Van bearing No-AP-23-T-7479 causing injuries to tle petitioner? 2. Whether tlrc petitioner is entitled for compensation? if so, to uhat ertent and from uhom?

3. To what relieJ?"

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunat came to the conclusion that 5 IT\IR,J IActA lfr.67o ol2aDO the acr:ident occurred due to the negligent driving of the DCM Van a:rd allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.3,48,L981- along witl. interest @ 7.5yo per annum making respondent Nos. 1 and 2 liable for payment of the said compensation.

7. Bt:ing unsatisfied and aggrieved by the meager compensation arnount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is frled on the following grounds that the learned Tribunal without appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed by the appellant, wrongly taken earnings of the appellant on lower side, witltout appreciating the documents under Ex.A10 and A11 and granted less compensation. Further, the learned Tribunal without appreciat:ing the evidence of Doctor properly, wrongly fixed the percentage of permanent disability on lower side. Further, the learr:.ed Tribunal failed to appreciate the medical bills under E)..A7, A8 & Ex.Xl coupled with oral evidence of the Resident Medical Officer (RMO)/PW3 and wrongly granted the 6 JU\IR,J MACMA 110.670 of 2O2O medical bills on lower side. Further, the multiplier and future prospects were not properly considered and not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. Hence, prayed for enhancement of the compensation.

8. Heard Sri P.Rama Krishna Red.dgr learned counsel for the petitioner and Sr:r N.Sa.shidhar, learned counsel representing Sri Kondqdl Alqg Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material on record-

9. The only point that arises before this Court in this appeal is that: Wlrcther the petitioner LS entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what ertent?

10. Admittedly, respondents have. not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident.

11. The petitioner further averred that the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider the medical bills incurred by the 7 J ,t ACUA Ie.67O ol2otto 'u\n petition€:r for an amount of Rs. 1,85,000/-. Though the learned counsel for the appellant contended that inspite of the evidt:nce of PW3, the learned Tribunal did not choose to consider Ex.Xl and only awarded Rs.5,698/- as against the entire bitls at Rs.1,85,000/-. It is also contended that the learned llribunal did not consider the functional disability of i t. the petitioner at lSYo and taken the disability as 5% only.

12. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the learn,:d Tribunal has taken the functional disability at 5% by obsenring that the disability certifrcate under Ex.A9 was issued orr 04.03.2015 and by that time the treatment of the petitioner was not concluded. He further contended that the learned Tribunal did not consider the entire medical bills as the original medical bills were not placed before the Tribunal. Per antrtt t.I:e learned counsel for the appellant contended that the o riginal medical bills were misplaced.

13. Adnrittedly, Ex.X I shows that the petitioner incurred Rs.1,85,000/-, which is also corroborated by PW3. It is B ,VIIE,J MAdMA l{o.67o oJ 2O2O deposed by PW3 in his evidence that Ex.Xl was issued to show that the petitioner incurred Rs.1,85,000 /- relyiJng upon the essentiality certificate issued under Ex.A7. Admittedly, a bunch of medical bills (15 in number) said to have been incurred by the petitioner and the same was placed before the Tribunal but the learned Tribunal did not consider Ex.A7 essentiality certifrcate and also Ex.Xl for the reason that the petitioner might have claimed the medical bills. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 pointed out that PW3 specifically stated in the cross-examination that there is no evidence with regard to final bill in the patient record and the essentiality certificate was issued by them at the request of the petitioner. It is also stated by PW3 that there is no possibility that as original medical bills are not there, the petitioner,might have claimed the medical bills, which creates doubt in the mind of this Court, further, in the present case Ex.Xl essential certificate clearly shows that it was issued for the purpose of claiming, which was clearly deposed by PW3, as such, the 9 I\aR,J xAcXA Na67O oJ 2O2O learnr:d Tribunal has disallowed and did not consider the amou nt in the said medical bills.

14. llhe other aspect the learned counsel for the appellant raised that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered 15% as functional disability and the learned Tribunal has taken ,1nly 5%. This Court is of the opinion that as there is specifi<: erridence placed before this Court by the petitioner by examining PW2/Doctor, who specifically stated that there is a fracturr: and it takes at least 12 weeks to heal for the visible union signs on the X-rays and he also stated that the petitionr:r was operated on 30.01.2015 and Exs.A2 to ,{4 were issued. Considering the said evidence placed by pW2 and Ex.A9 disabilit5r certificate, though the learned Tribunal has taken functional disability at Soh, this Court is of the opinion that it :rppears to be on the lower side and the 1earned Tribunal ought to have taken it at 10% and awarded compensation to that extent of functional disability. This Court is r>f the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for 10yo 10 ,ctn J UACUA Itb.67O ol2O2O towards functional disability instead of 5%. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1,75,0OO/- for pain and sirffering, Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.5,698/- towards Pharmacy bills under Ex.A8, Rs.S,0OO/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 10,OOO/- towards attendant charges. I hold that this point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No.2.

15. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings and material on record, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Head Loss of earning power @ 5% disabilitv Pain and sufferine Medical Bills Transportation charses Attendant Chafges Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrlved at by this Court Rs.1.27.5OO/- Rs.1.75.00O/- Rs.5.698/- Rs.5.OOO/- Rs.1O,000/- Rs.2.55:OOO/- Rs.1,75,00O/- Rs.5,698/- Rs.5.O00/- Rs.1O,000/- Total Rs.3,48,198/- Rs.4,5O,698/-

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the coqpgpsation from Rs.3,48,LgSl- to Rs.4r50,6ggl- l'-- 11 IUI4J uACYA l$-670 of 2O!2a, (Rupees Four Lakhs fifty thousaad six hundred and ninety eight only) with the interest of 7.So/" on the enhalced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. However, the appellant/petitioner shall pay th,: deficit Court Fee on the enhanced compensation. The res,pondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if within a period of two "rry, months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdra/r/ ttre same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, City Civil C;ourt, Hyderabad.

1. The Chainnan Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 2. One CC to Sri P. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies I Additional Chief Judge, AS/kam &t .f .: :! 0 5 i'r[R ?,UZ[ LJ 'rg., - .J: .*':'' ,i .- ..'l ,,)' HIGH COURT DATE :3i110712025 D JUDGMENT MACMA.No.670 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWED Jrs */./* [ 3,[431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Between: G. Nagesh, S/o. Rajaiah. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND 1 . A. Chandrashekar, S/o. A. Ramulu (Owner-cum-Driver of the DCM Van bearing No.AP23T -7 47 9)

2. The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, (a Anil Dhirubhai Ambani Group) Reptd., by its Divisional Manager, 4-3-327 to 337, Sagar Plaza, 4th Floor, Abids, Hyderabad. Policy No.1804542349001390 Valid from 16-05- 2014 to 15-06-2015 Appeal under Seciion 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.884 of 2015 daled 2-1-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusin$ 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 P. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar , Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,48,198/- to Rs.4,50,698i- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand Six Hundred and Ninety Eight Rupees only) with the interest of

7.5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That, trowever the appellanupetitioner shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanc:ed comPensation;

3. That ttre Respondent No.2 is be and hereby directed to deposit the said amounl. together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any within a period of two months from the date of receipt cf a copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the appellanVpetitioner is be and hereby by permitted to withdrarv the same without furnishing any security;

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

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ISTANT REGISTRAR To, '1 . The Cha rman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cu Additional Chief Judge, ,/TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. lwo CD (lopies AS kanr [w: HIGH COURT DATED i'l1110712025 DECREE MACMA.No.670 of 2020 1HE S ( o * 0 5 riig ?n?fr t PARTLY A LLOWED -J6 r o fz-lz-e ,