Heard the submissions of sri v. Brahamaiah chowdary, learned rlouflser for the appeilant and sri V. Venkata Rami

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.653 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decrr:e dated 05.03.2021 in M.A.T.O.P.No.01 of 2018 passed by the C;hairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Vll Additional District Judge, Kl'rammam (for short "the Tribunal").

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 was that on

20.07.20'7 at about B:30 a.m., the petitioner was going on his moped TVS XL bearing No.TS-04EJ-3945 towards his village from Chandruglonda and on the way, when he reached near Seetahigudem X Roads, on R & B Road, a Car bearing No.AP- 16BK-37t]9 came at a high speed driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the moped, as a result the petitioner sustained fracture injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kothagudem and later he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment and from there, he 2 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021 was again shifted to Mamatha Hospitar, Khammam. Thus, the petitioner sought a compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. 4 The respondent No..t remained ex_parte

5. The respondent No.2 fired counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. rt is further contended that the driver of the crime vehicre did not possess vatid driving ricense and that their company is liable to pay compensation. 6 Based on the above preadings, the Tribunar has framed the following issues for consideration:_

2. 3'

4. whether the driver of car bearing registration No.Ap_168K_37g9 drove the car in a rash ana neltigint iiii.i-"nd caused the accident due to which the ctaim paitior", iiii* proceeding on his moped rvs xL bearing No.'TS-04EJ-sgis istained murtipre injuies? whether the ctaim petition r.s bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? whether -thg glaim petitioner is entired for compensafion as pfayed for? tf sq fo what extent and froi which of the respondents? To what relief?

7. To pr.ove their case, the petitioner got examined pws .1 & 2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. on behalf of the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. i t t I \ I 3 ETD,J MACMA No.653_2021

8. Birsed on the evidence on record, the Tribunar has awarded cornpen:sation of Rs.2,32,1oot-. Aggrieved by the same, the ctaimant had preferred the present appeal. 9' Heard the submissions of sri v. Brahamaiah chowdary, learned rlouflser for the appeilant and sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

10. Le;rrned counser for the appeilant has submitted that the Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards transport charges and has not considered 7s% disabirity as discrosed from the disability certificate and has not awarded any amounts under the head for loss of future earnings. He therefore, prayed to award the said amount and enhance the compensation. 11- Learned counser for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunat has assessed 1 0o/o offunctional disability and awarcred ross of future earnings to the said extent and therefore prayed to uphord the award passed by the Tribunal by dismissing this appeal.

12. ln virew of the above rivar contentions, the points that arise for consideration in this Appeal are as follows:_ 1 Whether the claimant compensation? /b entiiled to enhancement of t, Ir .H 4 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021

2. whether the order and Decree of the Tibunat need any interference ? To what relief ?

3. 13. Point No.{:- a) The contention of the appelrant counsel is mainly on two grounds that the Tribunal has awarded very tess amount towards the transport charges and loss of future earnings due to disability. b) A perusal of Ex.A3M/ound certificate issued by Mamatha General Hospital reveals that the petitioner sustained three simple injuries and one grievous injury. The discharge summary under Ex.A6 reveals that the petitioner has undergone treatment at Mamatha General super specialty Hospital from 21.01.2017 to

21.08.2017 for fracture of L3 burst with compression. lt further discloses the details of the treatment undenruent by the petitioner and the chief complaint as narrated in the discharge summary is that he sustained injuries in the road traffic acciderit on 20.07 .2017.|t further discloses the nature of the treatment, the investigation done at their hospital and that he was advised for follow up treatment after discharge, The second discharge summary shows that he is admitted on 06.09.2017 and discharged on 08.09.2017 with a compliant that there is a six weeks old compound comminuted fracture of right ankle with traumatic paraphesia to both tower limbs, thus he was treated in the hospital as inpatient. Another discharge \-r 5 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021 summary shows that he was again admitted on 06.10.2017 and dischargr:d on 07.10.2017, wherein it is mentioned that there is l-3 burst at the fracture site with compression and was treated for the same as inpatient. Another Discharge Summary is from 10.02.2018 to 26.02.2018, wherein he was treated for abcess in the right ankle. Another discharge summary discloses that he undenruent inpatient treatment from 05.04.2018 to 13.04.2018, wherein it was diagnosed that he vuas suffering with eight months old compound injury over ankle joint and L3 Burst of fracture dnd paraplegia of right lower limb and fracture of tibia and fibula and there was pus discharge. The disability certificate filed by the petitioner discloses that he sustained 75o/o of disability to his bilateral lower limb with post traumatic sequel spine. The hospital bills under EXAS is filed, wherein it discloses that the petitioner has paid Rs.6,880/- towards the X-rays and other diagnostic tests pertaining to the spine. c) Further, the evidence of PW2lDr. V. Shankar Rao, a Casualty Medical Officer in Mamatha General Hospital, reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 21.07.2017 atter sustaining injuries in a road traffic accident on 02.07.2017. He was admitted with potytraurna with burst fracture of L3 vertbra with right biomalleolar fracture 'with subluxation of right ankle. He deposed with regard to the dates of admission and discharge of petitioner into their hospital. / _r' i 6 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021, Thus, the evidence of pw2 corroborates to that of the discharge summaries issued under Ex.A6. Thus, the evidence on record discloses that the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident and initially he was taken to the Government Hospital, wherein the wound certificate was issued under Ex.A3 and then he was taken to Yashoda Hospital, wherein he undenuent certain diagnostic tests and subsequenfly, he went to Mamatha Hospital. The discharge summary also discloses the nature of treatment undenrvent by the petitioner d) The grievance of the claimant is that he was awarded low amount for transportation and the compensation for his disability. lt is already discussed above that the petitioner was admitted in different spells for about five times into Mamatha Hospital at Khammam and the record discloses that he hails from a village chandrugonda. Thus, he might have incurred expenditure'towards transportation for his multiple visits to the hospital. Therefore, it is opined that an amount of Rs.25,000/- if awarded towards transportation would be just and reasonable as against Rs.5,000/- that was awarded by the tribunal. e) with regard to permanent disability the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,31 ,0401-. The compensation with regard to the disability i.e., : i I I .t 7 ETD,J MACMA No.653_2021 towards thr-' loss of future earnings has to be determined by following the dicta laid down by the Apex court in Raj Kumar vs. Aiay Kumarl. A perusal of disability certificate reveals that the petitioner sustained 75o/o of disability, however it is scaled down to 50% disability to the whole body and 25o/o towards loss of earnings capacity. T'he petitioner is stated to be a Vegetable Vendor and that he used tc) earn Rs.9,000/- per month. The Tribunal has assessed Rs.6,000/- per month. On a reasonable hypothesis, the income as assessed by the Tribunal is opined to be just and reasonable. The disability certificate/Ex.A5 discloses the age of the petitioner as '61' years aS on 2019 that means he must have been aged '59' years at the time of accident in the year 2017. Therefore an addition of 10% towards future prospects would give Rs.6,600/- and then Rs.1,78,200/- (Rs.79,2OOl- x 25o/o =19,800 x 9) would be the loss of future earnings because of permanent disability. Therefore, the compensation of petitioner is enhanced to 0 Rs.25,000/- under the head transport to hospital and to an extent of Rs.1,78,2(10/- under the head of permanent disability. g) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calcularted as Rs.2,99,260/- while the Tribunal has granted tzot t 1to sc3 343 !' 8 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021 Rs.2,32,1001- Thus, it is held that the petitioner is entifled for enhancement of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 14, Point No.2:- ln view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is herd that the order and decree of the Tribunat need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.2,gg,26ot- from that of Rs.2,32,1oot- that is awarded by the Tribunat. Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.3:- ln the resurt, M.A.C.M.A fired by the craimant is parfly a[owed, modifying the order and Decree dated os.og.2o21 in M.A.T.O.P.No.01 of 2o1B passed by the bhairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- special Judge for Trial of cases Under scheduled castes and schedured rribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-vll Additional District Judge, Khammam, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,32,1ool-to Rs.2,9 g,26ot-and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.50/o per annum from the date of ctaim petition tiil rearization. However, the interest for the-,'period of deray, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are /7 9 ETD,J MACMA No.653 2021 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 appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount vr'ithout furnishing any security. No costs. Mis'cellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appear, shall stand clo:;ed ,/TRUE COPY// SD/- C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Ch;rirman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-Vll Additional District Judge at Khammam.

2. One CC to SRI V.BRAHMAIAH CHOWDARY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI V.VENKATA RAMI REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD, Copies AS/nvb .l i I I ; r.*$":. '*,!'' "6" .. { { n :1.. ., , 4 t AP -i a i;!! ,?E {'1 $. 4. Sr, - j",1,r# HIGH COI.JRT DATED i1'410812025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.653 of 2A21 STA () lt rEB 2U6 * 'l:. \ ! i i t t PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITH OUT COSTS \, ..^ 9/ t34441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE t PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 653 OF 2021 Between: Pulicharla , Pulicherla Chennaiah , Chinnaiah, S/o. Venkat?swamy, 52 years, occ. Present Nil, R/o. H.No.3-1-177 of Kavirajnagar area, Khammam ...AppellanUPetitioner AND 3 Paruchuri Manohara Prasad, S/o. Venkaiah, Major, owner of the Car Bearing f.fo. AplOeK Si8Sj, nlo ff .f.io.Ob-g-gi,FfS, V(fowers, 6th Line, Siddartha Nagar, V'rjayawada.

4. National lnsurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional Manager, p]vlstgnal.Office- ,',-3'a ftoor, Mithra Agencies Bliqrl-g, qPp.. lll(ig $qdio, [t/,Q'Ro{, V'i;iv"*ioi (VioJpoiice No. s60600732iw at00004974 valid from 8.10.2006 to7 '10'2007) ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.p.No.01 of 2018 dated 05.08.2020 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Cla[ms Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA) Act-VllAdditional District Judge at Khammam. 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 upbn hearing the argument of Sri Brahmaiah Chowdary, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri V.venkat Ramireddy, Advocate, for the Respondent No.2, and none Appeared for the Respondent No.1. , * This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed modifying the order and Decree dated 05'03'2021 in .r/ i l I I I i ! I M,,A.T.O.P.No.01 of 2018 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under Scheduled Castes 4nd Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-Cum-VIl Additional District JurJge, Khammam, enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,32,100/- to Rs.2,99,260/- and the enhanced amount of compensation'shall carry interest @7.SYo per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That the interest for the period of delay, if any is forfeited. 3. That the Respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with acr:rued interest with a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited.

4. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security.

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

6. Th,at there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. , SD/. C.DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/STs (POA)Act-Vll Additional District Judge at Khammam.

2. Two CD Copies AS/nvb / / a HIGH COURT DATED:1410812025 DECREE MACMA.No.653 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITH OUT COSTS \ + ".b