The High Court · 2025

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. .95 0F JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the nsurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20. in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident ms Tribunal-cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, FAC Xll Add Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tri nal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

20.12.2016, while the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-15A0-6356 from Theegalguttapalli Village to Choppadandi, at about 12:30 p.m., one Mahindra Van bearing No.TS02-UA-8984 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. lmmediately, he was shifted to Prathima Hospital, for treatment. He incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. \ \\

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 4EGEgFl'eEsE:+="J;}ffi+*- ' 2 ETD,J MACMA No.95-2021

5. I'he respondent No.2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1

2. "Whether the petitioner/injured-M. Srnivas sustained injuries in notor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred ,1ue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Van ,ie a ri n g N o.T S-0 2- U A-89 I 4 ? lMhether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? lf so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. '.'o what relief?" 7: To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got nrarked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, 82 and Ex.X1 , X2.

8. Bas,ed on the evidence on record, the Trilrunal has granted a compensertion of Rs.21 ,84,2981-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Company. 3 ETD,J MACMA N0.95_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned that the petitioner was removed from service from the society, and he has argued that the petitioner got filed two disability certificates, Ex.AB discloses 70% disability while Ex.A9 discloses 65% disability, which causes suspicion on the evidence lead by the petitioner. He further argued that PW2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner was treated conservatively, which goes to show that the petitioner has not suffered any fracture injuries. He thus, prayed to reduce the compensation. He further submitted that the disability certificates filed by the petitioner are not supported by any X-rays or any other evidence. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has lost his job due to the disability sustained by him in the accident and that previously he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month and that they have also filed Salary Certificate before the tribunal. And now they have filed a letter issued \- 4 ETD,J MACMA No.95 202L by the Railway co-operative society, stating that he is removed from his jotr. He therefore, prayed to consider the earnings of the petitioner and prayed to enhance the compensation, though, they have not filed any appeal or Cross Objection.

12. Based on the above rivar contentions, this court frames the followinll points for determination :-

1. whether the compensation granted by the tribunar rs iusf and reasonable?

2. whether the order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any intefference ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Pc,int No.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is too high. The contention of the petitioner is'that he used to work as a Hamali and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. ln support of his case, he got examined pW4. b) PW4 who is the president of Hamali Railway cooperative society, l(arimnagar, he deposed before the tribunat that their society paid the petitioner a satary of Rs.25,000/- per month as he used to w,lrk as a Railway Goods Transport Hamali in Karimnagar Railway station. lt is elicited from him that Hamali work is totally a hard work and after the accident, the petitioner did not attend to work j /? i I I i\ 5 ETD,] MACMA No.95-2021 and he is walking with support of a stick and that he issued Ex.A11/income certificate of the petitioner. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that they maintain registers, but has not produced the c) A perusal of Ex.A11 reveals that it is a letter issued by PW4 on the Letter Head of "Tirumala Srinivasa South Central Railway Goods Transport Hamati and Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Karimnagar." lt is mentioned in the said letter dated 29.11.2018 that the petitioner was paid Rs.25,0001 salary and Rs.4,0001 commission and it is a Dhruvikarana Pathram. Ex.A10 is the ldentity Card of the petitioner issued by the Hamali Society. Thus, it is elicited that he used to work as hamali in the Cooperative Society. The registers are not produced and the Ex.A11 also does not reveal that it is a salary certificate, but it is brought out through the said exhibits that the petitioner worked as a Hamali in Railways' Therefore, considering the evidence on record, earnings aS assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per month is opined to be just and Proper. d) Learned counsel for the respondents filed a document along with a Memo before this Court and prayed to consider the same sayifu=tiTat the petitioner has lost his job. lt is pertinent to take note \ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 /- | of rhe fact that this is a civir Misceraneous Appear, arising out of the orcrer and Decree passed by the tribunar. The respondent cannot fire any document without a proper petition to consider the same. The docrrment is dated 0s.12.2020 and the order and decree dated 20.03.2020, that means the documents has been obtained subsequent to the decree passed by the tribunar and the accident pertains to the year 2016- rf at a, the petitioner was effected so badry, he courd have obtained the said certificate much prior during the pendency of the case before the tribunat, but has not obtained the serme- Moreover, he has fired two disabirity certificates under Ex'Ag and Ex.Ag. Ex.Ag is the disabirity certificate issued on 09' 1 1 .1',-017 by District Medicar Board, which shows that he sustained 70Yo disabirity, which is partiar permanent in nature, caused to right lower r,ffib impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequer rimbs suffered in the accident. Ex.Ag is the another disabirity certificate relied u[)on by the petitioner, issued by Dr. sathish chander, which is obtained on 0s.03.201g discrosing that he suffered 6s% of permanent partiar disabirity stating that he is unfit to do Rairway Hamali v/ork. He has atso got examined the doctors to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him and arso the treatment undenryent by him. , / 7 ETD,J MACMA No.95 2021 e) PW2lDr. Satish Chander, who issued Ex.A9, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He stated that the petitioner approached him with pain and swelling in the site of the injury and that he was initially treated in NIMS Hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Upon examination, the following injuries were identified i.e., 1) Grade-ll compound fracture distal 1/3 right tibia & fibula, 2) Right side posterior dislocation of Hip joint with communated acetabular fracture, 3) Right tibia patellar fracture tateral, a) Right knee joint ACL aulusion fracture, 5) pain, swelling, deformatory of right knee and that he examined the petitioner and found that he has the difficulty of bending due to hip vestibular fracture and that he was unfit for any hard work or manual work. ln future, he may require one more surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that he treated the petitioner conservatively after taking an X-ray at the time of treatment and that he has not conducted any surgery, and that the petitioner also came for foltow up treatment and that he has not issued any estimation certificate for removal of implants. 0 PW3/ Dr. P. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, he is one among the team of doctors 8 ETD,J MACMA No.95 2021 r^' who treated the petitioner. His evidence reveals that he was admitted at NIMS Hospital on 22.12.2016 with a history of injuries sustairred in the accident on 20.12.2016 and that he was found to have sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) closed fracture right acetablular with right hip dislocation, 2) right tibial spine avulsion fracture right knee with subluxation, 3) Grade-ll compound fracture both bones digitar r/3 right reg. They treated him with open reduction and relc'cation of right hip prating and arso rush nailing of both bones of right leg. Ex.A4 is the MLC issued by their hospital. lt is further elicited lrom him that Ex.A6, A7ldischarge record and some medical bills under Ex.A1 2 are issued by their hospitar. Nothing materiar was elicited from him during cross examination to dislodge his evidence. Ex.A4lMr>dico Legal case record issued by NtMS hospital which shows that the petitioner sustained taceration over dorsum of right foot, wound over mediar right teg, open deep wound over the reg near the l:nee and swefiing and tenderness on the right side of pelvis and that ,(-rays were taken and the reports were awaited, he was referred to orthopaedic Department. Ex.As is the discharge summary 'lisclosing that he was treated in the causality ward for the said injurie's. He was admitted on 22.12.2016 and was discharged on 23.12.2016. Ex.A6 is the discharge record, Ex.A4 is another discharge r;ummary of NIMS Hospitat, wherein it shows that he was ,I 9 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 admitted on 24.12.2016 and discharged on 31 .12.2016. During the inpatient treatment, he was operated on 27.12.2016. Thus, all these discharge summaries and atso the evidence of PW2 and 3 show that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, after which he also went to follow up treatment to PWz.Thus, he must have undenruent acute pain and suffering during the period of recovery. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. g) lt is also revealed from the evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board that he suffered 70% disability. The petitioner has also taken another disability certificate after two years, which shows 65% disability. Therefore, the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board can be relied upon, while awarding the iompensation. No estimation is submitted by the petitioner to show the future expenses, hence, the same need not be awarded. lt is also admitted by PW2 that he has not given any estimation for future treatment. h) With regard to the medica! bills it is awarded to the extent of bills filed by him i.e., Rs.25,698/-. lt is the common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of \! I I 10 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 Rs.10000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-^ourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/_ towaros attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenr;es is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thus, an amount of Rs.65,69g/_ (25,698/_ + 40,0001)is awarde'd under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses. i) Depending on the injuries, he must have taken six months to recover from the said injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is assessed for a period of six months i.e., Rs.1g,000t- x 6 which comes up to Rs.1,08,000/-. i) Tl'e disability as disclosed by Ex.AB shows that though it is permanent in nature, it is a partiar disability to right tower limb to the extent of 70o/o. ln view of the dicta laid down in Rai Kumar vs. Ajay Kumal, the disabirity has to be scared down to that of whore body and then to the ross of functionar disabirity. The petitioner used to work as a Hamati and though he may not be abte to continue to work as a Hamali after the accident, due to the said disability, he can as well attenrl to other kind of works, which are mentioned in the said disability c:ertificate that he can perform work by manipu 'zor t 1to sc(r 343 lating with ( 'il 11 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 fingers by pulting and pushing, by lifting, by sitting, by standing, by reading and by writing. Thus, it does not cause 100% functional disability or the total 70o/o functional disability as seen from the disability certificate. Therefore, the same is scaled down to 50% to the whole body and loss of functional disability is assessed as 4}o/o as he is an illiterate and may not be able to do job, where he can read and write, but he can do work only with his hands in a sitting position. Therefore, 40Yo functional disability is assessed and the same is calculated toward the loss of future earnings. The earnings assessed by the tribunal as Rs.18,000/- per month is found to be just and reasonable. The injured is aged 41 years as deposed by the petitioner himsetf. Therefore, adding 25o/o towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- x25o/o = Rs.4,500/- which comes to Rs.22,500/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.22,500 x12 = Rs.2,70,00O x 40o/o x 14= Rs.1 51 2,0001- k) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 2 3. 5 Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Loss of earnings (18,000 xG) Loss of future earnings due to disability Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 1,00,000/- 1,08,000/- 15,12,000r- 65,698/- : I I E:II Hq t I I I l I I I I I I Irl I 12 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 ; irotal 17,85,_6981 ; l) rherefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entifled is calc:ulated as Rs.17,85,698 /- whire the Tribunar has granted Rs.21 ,84,2981- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. l-{ence, point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

14. F'oint No.3:- l. view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 & 2, the order and decree of the Tribunar need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.2 1,B4,Zggl_ to 1 7,85,698/_. Point No.3 is answered accordingly f5. Poi No.4 ln the resurt, the appear is parfly ailowed, modifying the order and Dec'ee dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.o.p.No. 11 of 2o1T passed by the Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-XXvil Additionar chief Judge, FAC xil Additibnar chief Judge, city civir court, secunderabad, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21 ,g4,2ggr- to 17,85,698/-, and the compensation shail carry interest @ 7.so/o per annum from the date of craim petition tirr rearization. The claimants shail pay the deficit court fee. However, the interest for the /" 13 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed sD/- JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SriV Sambasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. P Rajeswari, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK % i l.. HIGH COURT DATED: 2210912025 I I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.95 of 2021 r.t L 1 "..', """ 1$ ttB $16 G) .i{1 it l.t '"i- c) c) I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT CO:STS ) rr\o 'i i : t3441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: United India lnsurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by lt s Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Godown Road, Nizamabad. ...Petitioner/Appel lant AND

1. M. Srinivas, S/o.M. Mallaiah, 41 Village and Mandal, Karimnagar years, Hamali, H.No. 11-9011, Choppadandi District. 2 B.Srinivas, S/o.B.Guruvaiah, Major. Labour, H.No. 3-121, Kukkalagudur Village, Ramgundam Mandal, Karimnagar District- 505172 (Owner of Mahindra Van No. TS 02 UA 8984) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 11 of 2017 dated 20-A3-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal ,and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. P Rajeswari, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21 ,84,2891- to Rs.17,85,698/-.

2. That the compensation shall carry interest @7.SYo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee if any 4. That the interest for the period of delay, be and hereby is forfeited. 5. That the appellant-lnsurance Company be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after de,Jucting the amount if any already deposited.

6. That on such deposit, the claimant-respondent No.1 be and hereby is enl:itled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

7. Th;rt save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in irll other respects; and

8. Thilt there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPYII OFFICER To,

1. The Cltairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Two C[t Copies ABK o i, HIGH COURT DATED: 2210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.95 oI 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS R

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A. .95 0F JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the nsurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 20. in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by the Motor Accident ms Tribunal-cum-XXVll Additional Chief Judge, FAC Xll Add Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tri nal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

20.12.2016, while the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing No.AP-15A0-6356 from Theegalguttapalli Village to Choppadandi, at about 12:30 p.m., one Mahindra Van bearing No.TS02-UA-8984 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. lmmediately, he was shifted to Prathima Hospital, for treatment. He incurred huge medical expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-. \ \\

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. 4EGEgFl'eEsE:+="J;}ffi+*- ' 2 ETD,J MACMA No.95-2021

5. I'he respondent No.2 has filed counter denying averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. lt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1

2. "Whether the petitioner/injured-M. Srnivas sustained injuries in notor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred ,1ue to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Van ,ie a ri n g N o.T S-0 2- U A-89 I 4 ? lMhether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? lf so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. '.'o what relief?" 7: To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4 and got nrarked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RWs 1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, 82 and Ex.X1 , X2.

8. Bas,ed on the evidence on record, the Trilrunal has granted a compensertion of Rs.21 ,84,2981-. Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance Company. 3 ETD,J MACMA N0.95_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the petitioners have not mentioned that the petitioner was removed from service from the society, and he has argued that the petitioner got filed two disability certificates, Ex.AB discloses 70% disability while Ex.A9 discloses 65% disability, which causes suspicion on the evidence lead by the petitioner. He further argued that PW2 is the doctor who treated the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner was treated conservatively, which goes to show that the petitioner has not suffered any fracture injuries. He thus, prayed to reduce the compensation. He further submitted that the disability certificates filed by the petitioner are not supported by any X-rays or any other evidence. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has lost his job due to the disability sustained by him in the accident and that previously he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month and that they have also filed Salary Certificate before the tribunal. And now they have filed a letter issued \- 4 ETD,J MACMA No.95 202L by the Railway co-operative society, stating that he is removed from his jotr. He therefore, prayed to consider the earnings of the petitioner and prayed to enhance the compensation, though, they have not filed any appeal or Cross Objection.

12. Based on the above rivar contentions, this court frames the followinll points for determination :-

1. whether the compensation granted by the tribunar rs iusf and reasonable?

2. whether the order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need any intefference ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Pc,int No.1: a) The contention of the appellant is that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is too high. The contention of the petitioner is'that he used to work as a Hamali and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month. ln support of his case, he got examined pW4. b) PW4 who is the president of Hamali Railway cooperative society, l(arimnagar, he deposed before the tribunat that their society paid the petitioner a satary of Rs.25,000/- per month as he used to w,lrk as a Railway Goods Transport Hamali in Karimnagar Railway station. lt is elicited from him that Hamali work is totally a hard work and after the accident, the petitioner did not attend to work j /? i I I i\ 5 ETD,] MACMA No.95-2021 and he is walking with support of a stick and that he issued Ex.A11/income certificate of the petitioner. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that they maintain registers, but has not produced the c) A perusal of Ex.A11 reveals that it is a letter issued by PW4 on the Letter Head of "Tirumala Srinivasa South Central Railway Goods Transport Hamati and Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited, Karimnagar." lt is mentioned in the said letter dated 29.11.2018 that the petitioner was paid Rs.25,0001 salary and Rs.4,0001 commission and it is a Dhruvikarana Pathram. Ex.A10 is the ldentity Card of the petitioner issued by the Hamali Society. Thus, it is elicited that he used to work as hamali in the Cooperative Society. The registers are not produced and the Ex.A11 also does not reveal that it is a salary certificate, but it is brought out through the said exhibits that the petitioner worked as a Hamali in Railways' Therefore, considering the evidence on record, earnings aS assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per month is opined to be just and Proper. d) Learned counsel for the respondents filed a document along with a Memo before this Court and prayed to consider the same sayifu=tiTat the petitioner has lost his job. lt is pertinent to take note \ 6 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 /- | of rhe fact that this is a civir Misceraneous Appear, arising out of the orcrer and Decree passed by the tribunar. The respondent cannot fire any document without a proper petition to consider the same. The docrrment is dated 0s.12.2020 and the order and decree dated 20.03.2020, that means the documents has been obtained subsequent to the decree passed by the tribunar and the accident pertains to the year 2016- rf at a, the petitioner was effected so badry, he courd have obtained the said certificate much prior during the pendency of the case before the tribunat, but has not obtained the serme- Moreover, he has fired two disabirity certificates under Ex'Ag and Ex.Ag. Ex.Ag is the disabirity certificate issued on 09' 1 1 .1',-017 by District Medicar Board, which shows that he sustained 70Yo disabirity, which is partiar permanent in nature, caused to right lower r,ffib impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequer rimbs suffered in the accident. Ex.Ag is the another disabirity certificate relied u[)on by the petitioner, issued by Dr. sathish chander, which is obtained on 0s.03.201g discrosing that he suffered 6s% of permanent partiar disabirity stating that he is unfit to do Rairway Hamali v/ork. He has atso got examined the doctors to prove the nature of injuries suffered by him and arso the treatment undenryent by him. , / 7 ETD,J MACMA No.95 2021 e) PW2lDr. Satish Chander, who issued Ex.A9, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He stated that the petitioner approached him with pain and swelling in the site of the injury and that he was initially treated in NIMS Hospital for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Upon examination, the following injuries were identified i.e., 1) Grade-ll compound fracture distal 1/3 right tibia & fibula, 2) Right side posterior dislocation of Hip joint with communated acetabular fracture, 3) Right tibia patellar fracture tateral, a) Right knee joint ACL aulusion fracture, 5) pain, swelling, deformatory of right knee and that he examined the petitioner and found that he has the difficulty of bending due to hip vestibular fracture and that he was unfit for any hard work or manual work. ln future, he may require one more surgery for removal of implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that he treated the petitioner conservatively after taking an X-ray at the time of treatment and that he has not conducted any surgery, and that the petitioner also came for foltow up treatment and that he has not issued any estimation certificate for removal of implants. 0 PW3/ Dr. P. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, he is one among the team of doctors 8 ETD,J MACMA No.95 2021 r^' who treated the petitioner. His evidence reveals that he was admitted at NIMS Hospital on 22.12.2016 with a history of injuries sustairred in the accident on 20.12.2016 and that he was found to have sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) closed fracture right acetablular with right hip dislocation, 2) right tibial spine avulsion fracture right knee with subluxation, 3) Grade-ll compound fracture both bones digitar r/3 right reg. They treated him with open reduction and relc'cation of right hip prating and arso rush nailing of both bones of right leg. Ex.A4 is the MLC issued by their hospital. lt is further elicited lrom him that Ex.A6, A7ldischarge record and some medical bills under Ex.A1 2 are issued by their hospitar. Nothing materiar was elicited from him during cross examination to dislodge his evidence. Ex.A4lMr>dico Legal case record issued by NtMS hospital which shows that the petitioner sustained taceration over dorsum of right foot, wound over mediar right teg, open deep wound over the reg near the l:nee and swefiing and tenderness on the right side of pelvis and that ,(-rays were taken and the reports were awaited, he was referred to orthopaedic Department. Ex.As is the discharge summary 'lisclosing that he was treated in the causality ward for the said injurie's. He was admitted on 22.12.2016 and was discharged on 23.12.2016. Ex.A6 is the discharge record, Ex.A4 is another discharge r;ummary of NIMS Hospitat, wherein it shows that he was ,I 9 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 admitted on 24.12.2016 and discharged on 31 .12.2016. During the inpatient treatment, he was operated on 27.12.2016. Thus, all these discharge summaries and atso the evidence of PW2 and 3 show that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the accident and was treated as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, after which he also went to follow up treatment to PWz.Thus, he must have undenruent acute pain and suffering during the period of recovery. Hence, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. g) lt is also revealed from the evidence of PW2 and the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board that he suffered 70% disability. The petitioner has also taken another disability certificate after two years, which shows 65% disability. Therefore, the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board can be relied upon, while awarding the iompensation. No estimation is submitted by the petitioner to show the future expenses, hence, the same need not be awarded. lt is also admitted by PW2 that he has not given any estimation for future treatment. h) With regard to the medica! bills it is awarded to the extent of bills filed by him i.e., Rs.25,698/-. lt is the common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of \! I I 10 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 Rs.10000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-^ourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/_ towaros attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenr;es is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thus, an amount of Rs.65,69g/_ (25,698/_ + 40,0001)is awarde'd under the heads medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses. i) Depending on the injuries, he must have taken six months to recover from the said injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is assessed for a period of six months i.e., Rs.1g,000t- x 6 which comes up to Rs.1,08,000/-. i) Tl'e disability as disclosed by Ex.AB shows that though it is permanent in nature, it is a partiar disability to right tower limb to the extent of 70o/o. ln view of the dicta laid down in Rai Kumar vs. Ajay Kumal, the disabirity has to be scared down to that of whore body and then to the ross of functionar disabirity. The petitioner used to work as a Hamati and though he may not be abte to continue to work as a Hamali after the accident, due to the said disability, he can as well attenrl to other kind of works, which are mentioned in the said disability c:ertificate that he can perform work by manipu 'zor t 1to sc(r 343 lating with ( 'il 11 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 fingers by pulting and pushing, by lifting, by sitting, by standing, by reading and by writing. Thus, it does not cause 100% functional disability or the total 70o/o functional disability as seen from the disability certificate. Therefore, the same is scaled down to 50% to the whole body and loss of functional disability is assessed as 4}o/o as he is an illiterate and may not be able to do job, where he can read and write, but he can do work only with his hands in a sitting position. Therefore, 40Yo functional disability is assessed and the same is calculated toward the loss of future earnings. The earnings assessed by the tribunal as Rs.18,000/- per month is found to be just and reasonable. The injured is aged 41 years as deposed by the petitioner himsetf. Therefore, adding 25o/o towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- x25o/o = Rs.4,500/- which comes to Rs.22,500/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.22,500 x12 = Rs.2,70,00O x 40o/o x 14= Rs.1 51 2,0001- k) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation amounts: 1 2 3. 5 Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering Loss of earnings (18,000 xG) Loss of future earnings due to disability Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses 1,00,000/- 1,08,000/- 15,12,000r- 65,698/- : I I E:II Hq t I I I l I I I I I I Irl I 12 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 ; irotal 17,85,_6981 ; l) rherefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entifled is calc:ulated as Rs.17,85,698 /- whire the Tribunar has granted Rs.21 ,84,2981- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced. l-{ence, point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

14. F'oint No.3:- l. view of the findings arrived at point Nos.1 & 2, the order and decree of the Tribunar need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.2 1,B4,Zggl_ to 1 7,85,698/_. Point No.3 is answered accordingly f5. Poi No.4 ln the resurt, the appear is parfly ailowed, modifying the order and Dec'ee dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.o.p.No. 11 of 2o1T passed by the Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-XXvil Additionar chief Judge, FAC xil Additibnar chief Judge, city civir court, secunderabad, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21 ,g4,2ggr- to 17,85,698/-, and the compensation shail carry interest @ 7.so/o per annum from the date of craim petition tirr rearization. The claimants shail pay the deficit court fee. However, the interest for the /" 13 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021 period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the claimant-respondent No.1 is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal No costs Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed sD/- JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. One CC to SriV Sambasiva Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Smt. P Rajeswari, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies ABK % i l.. HIGH COURT DATED: 2210912025 I I JUDGMENT MACMA.No.95 of 2021 r.t L 1 "..', """ 1$ ttB $16 G) .i{1 it l.t '"i- c) c) I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT CO:STS ) rr\o 'i i : t3441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Between: United India lnsurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by lt s Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Godown Road, Nizamabad. ...Petitioner/Appel lant AND

1. M. Srinivas, S/o.M. Mallaiah, 41 Village and Mandal, Karimnagar years, Hamali, H.No. 11-9011, Choppadandi District. 2 B.Srinivas, S/o.B.Guruvaiah, Major. Labour, H.No. 3-121, Kukkalagudur Village, Ramgundam Mandal, Karimnagar District- 505172 (Owner of Mahindra Van No. TS 02 UA 8984) ...Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree in M.V.O.P.No. 11 of 2017 dated 20-A3-2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal ,and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V Sambasiva Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and of Smt. P Rajeswari, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21 ,84,2891- to Rs.17,85,698/-.

2. That the compensation shall carry interest @7.SYo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

3. That the claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee if any 4. That the interest for the period of delay, be and hereby is forfeited. 5. That the appellant-lnsurance Company be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after de,Jucting the amount if any already deposited.

6. That on such deposit, the claimant-respondent No.1 be and hereby is enl:itled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

7. Th;rt save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in irll other respects; and

8. Thilt there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPYII OFFICER To,

1. The Cltairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad.

2. Two C[t Copies ABK o i, HIGH COURT DATED: 2210912025 DECREE MACMA.No.95 oI 2O21 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS R