The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI METTU SHANKAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT r:4- f HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPI THI RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.319 F 2022 GMENT: 'this appt'al is directec-l agarnst the order ar I decree datcc'l

25.03.2022 in M.\'.O,P.No.3047 of 2017, passed by the ( 'hairman, Motor Accidents Ctaims 'l ribunal-cum-Xl Aclditional ChieI udge, Cit)' Civil Courts at L{yderabac-l (for short 'the Tribunal'), wh<r ein the claim of respondent No,'l herein was allorved, awarding i ompensation of Rs.6,34,115/- with interest at 9o/u per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization r'r,ith proportionate costs

2. Fleard Mr. Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learnecl :ounsel for the appellant-insura nce company and Mr. Mettu Shankar learned counsel for respondent No.1/claimant. Perusecl the material o, L record

3. The appellant herein is the respondent No.2-in; rrance comPany/ respondent No.1 herein is the claim petitioner befole he Tribunal. For convenience, thc parties hereinaftel arc referred to a; they are arrayed before the Tribunal

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appea is that the claim petitioner engagecl Bolero Van bearing registratior-r ir r. AP-20-'I'C-4024 2 and loaded mango crop and came to Hyclerabarl from his native place Papakollu and after unloading the same, while returning to Papakollu in the same vchiclc on 10.05.2017 and when reached at the outskirts of Pamanuguncla villagc, Kattarrgur Matrclal, N;rlgoncla district at about

15.30 hours, one lorry container bearing registration No.AP-29-TB-5903 (hereinafter referred to as 'crime vehicle') catne in rash and negligent manner w,ith high sl.,ccd arrd dashc'd the Bolero Van from its back side, due to which the ctaim petitioner and Bolero Van driver sustained gricvous injuries all over the body. Immediately, claim petitioner was shifted to local Area ltospital for first aid and l.rter shiftcd to Kamineni Hospitai, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, for better treatment and admitted as inpatient on 11.05.2017. The claim petitioner undergone surgery or1

73.05.2017 for the fracturc injuries and was discharged on'17.05.2017. The Police, Kattangur Police Station registered a case in Crime No'99 of 2077 against the driver of crime vehicle and f iled charge sheet'

5. It is further averred that petitioner was aged 45 years and was hale and healthy prior to the date of accident and was doing agricultural-cum-labour work and used to earn Rs'15,000/- per month and contributing the same to his lamily and he spent an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for medicine angl hospital exPenses Due to the said J accident, he was partially disabled and unable to m(' (' from bed and is suffering a lot r,vith pain and suffering and menta rgony. As such, the claim petitioner iilt'cl IvlVOI'] No.3047 c,i 2017 claiming Rs 6,00,000/- for i.ompt-ns.rtion ton,ards thc' suffcri - 3s sustairred by him.

6. The fribunal, on dut' enquirv and on consiclt r ng the oral and documentary evidence, has categoricalll' held t' it the ar:cident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of th,: crime vehicle by its driver and avvardecl an amount of Rs.6,34,lll /- to the claim petl troner.

7. Aggrieved bv the same, the appellant/insurari e company filed the present Appcal

8. Learned counse[ for appellant/ insurance ] ,rnpany, though several contentions were urged, he mainly contcndc l that the'fribunal has erroneously determined the income of the cl .im petitioner at Rs.9,000/- per month without there being any evir.r nce produced by the claim petitioner and wrongly assessed the r ompensation for pernlanent disabitity basing on wrong assur-r- 1 tion income of 4 Rs.9,000/- per month and contended that the claim petitioner is not entitled to the awarded amourrt

9. Par contrn, Iearrred counsel for the respondent No.1/claim petitioner submitted that on due consideration of the evidence and material placcd on record, Lhe ['riburral had rightlv awarded the compensaiion and therefore, and no grounds are made out to interfere with the well considerc'd awarcl passed bv the Tribunal

10. On perusal of the award, thc clairn pctitioner though claimed Rs.15,000/- pcr month towards his earnings bv doing agricultural and labour, the Tribunal determined the notional income of the claim petitioner as Rs.9,000/ - by considering to bc an Agriculturist/ Farm Labour.

11. As seen from the recorcl, the claim petitioner has not produced any document to substantiate his alleged monthly income of Rs.15,000/-, nor has he furnished any evidence to show ownershiP of agricultural land or income derived therefrom. [Je has also failed to examine any witness to establish that he is engaged in agricultural activities, but was considered as agricultural labour and the Tribunal fixed his earnings as [ts.9,000/- pcr month 72 In a recent judgment in the case of Malakapc r and others v' Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited ir: Ld anotherl, the Ilon'ble Supreme Court has fixcd thc. income oI an rgricuiturc farm labourer as Rs.8,000/- per month 13 Consiciering the fact that the claim petitioncr IS stated to be r,n,orking as an agricultural labourer, in the e rselrce of any documentary evidence, his monthly income carr be reasonably assessed at Rs.8,000/- iu terms of the clecision of iht: I iln'ble Supreme Court in the above-referred case

74. In view of the foregoing discussion and the L:,al position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inccr te of the claim petitioner can be taken as Rs.8,000/-, instead ct Rs.9,000/- determined by the Tribunal, and the same to be mcc i ied to the above extent only for assessing the compcnsation for p('rr Ianent disability suffered by the claim petitioner.

15. Therefore, the annual income of the pet t oner comes to Rs.96,000/- (Rs.8000/- x 12). After applying'-[4' mu.l.: :lier, the income of the claim petitioner comes to Rs.73,44,000/ -. On r:i lculation of Z0% r 2025 scc onlnrc SC 979 6 partial permanerlt disability, as assessed vatidly by the Tribunal, the claim petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.2,68,800 l- and thus, the claim petitior-rcr is cntitled for the sanrc torr,nrds partral permtinent disability. The award passed by the Tribunal under the other lreads calls for no interferencc and the same. shall remarn intact '16. in vien, of the above discussion, the compensation amount is k ornpensation awarded Rs. 5,000.00 recalculated as under Sl.No. Head 1 2 3 4 5 Damagcs ton ards trarlsporta tioll Compensation towards pain and Rs.1,40,000.00 su(ferin Compensation towards partial Rs.2,58,800.00 ermanent d isability .__ Compensatiorr torvards medical l(s.1,76,715.00 ex enses Compensation towards special diet Rs. 10,000.00 Total compensation to be paid Rs.6,00,515.00

17. In the result, Appeal is partly allon'ed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified reducing from Rs.6,34,115/- to Rs.6,00,515/-, which shall carry interest at the rate 97" awarded by ihe Tribunal, f rom the date of the claim petition till the date of realization 7

18. The appellant-insurance company IS directe: to deoosit the abovt,compensatton crfirount r,r,ithin a period of ei1;]r weeks from the date of receipt of copv of this order 19 On such rlt:posit, the responclent No.l/ r.lr rn [rttitirrner is entitled to w,ithdr,rrr' the r'ntire compensation amorir l. 'l hcre shatl be no orc'ler as to costs Penclinll miscelitrneous applications if anl, shal rttrntl clost,d. SD/- IJ JAWAHAR REDDY ASsiI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ( S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribu I rl -cum-Xl Additionat Chref Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2 One CC to SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [O,] JCI 3. One CC to SRI METTU SHANKAR Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies KVR/nr b HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.319 of 2022 I .u $l;:. I li 3 il';. i ltl{D C) 1_ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MAGMA WITI{OUT COSTS I 0 ?- 4 [ 3485 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCIOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 319 OF 2022 Between: National lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. D.No.5-8-568/1, 1st Floor, Jubilee Hyderabad-0 1. Bu its Manager, Legal TP Claims, Hub ilding, Nampally Station Road, Abids, ..AppellanURespondent No.2 AND 1 Yasa Appa Rao and 2 Others, S/o.Pullaiah, Age 45 years, Occ. Ex- Agriculturist cum Labour, R/o.H.No.2-37l1 , Papkoliu, Julurpadu, Khammam Dislrict, temprary R/o.H.No.2-3-64518,15, Patelnagar, Amberpet, Hyderabad- 500 013. ... RespondenUPetitioner

2. Sanju Chiripal, S/o-Chirupal Pavan Kumar, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No.AP29TB5903, Chirpal Logistics, R/o.Plot No.9, Block No.31, Autonagar, Vanasthalipuram, Saroonagar, Rangareddy District.

3. Kurimilla Ramulu, S/o. Samuel, Age 30 years, Occ. Driver, R/o. Nomula Village, Nakrerkal Mandal, District Nalognda. ...Respondents/Respondent No.1 & 3 Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree made in M.V.O.P.No.3047 of 2017 dated 25.03.2022 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri lt/ethi Shanker, Advocate for the Fl rspondent No.1 , and None appeared for the respondent No.2 and 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the [\rlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be : rd hereby is allowed by reducing the amount of compensation from Rs.6,34. '151 to Rs.6,00,5151 whrch shall carry interest at the rate 9% awarded b / , re l-ribunal f rom the date of the claim Petitron till the date of realization. 2 That the appellant-lnsu rance copy be and hereby is rli ected to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of eight v( eks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. .) 4 That on such deposit, the respondent No.liCtaim petitic rer be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shil stands confirmed in all other respects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. I/I JAWAHAR REDDY ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ Becrroru oFFrcER To, '1 . The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Triburri I -cum-Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies M, KV R/nvh HIGH COURT DATED:1011012025 DECREE MACMA.No.319 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WII'{OUT COSTS q 1 \ 1t )/