The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A.V.K.S PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Harinatha Gupta The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. WSTICE TIRT'MALA DE\TI EADA M.A.C.M.A.trtO.6 62 0F 20/21 JUDGM ENT: This appeal is hled by the claimant, aggrieved [r, the Order and Decree dated 03.O3.2O2O in M.V.O.p.No.396 of 2Ct4 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribur,al_cum_The Court of the Chiet Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderat a C (for short "the Tribunal") .

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

3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunz I is that on 22.06.2073 when the petitioner was going on his rnotor bike bearing No.AP- 1 IAC-2871 towards Nayapool ald when he reached near Mini Naz Hotel at petlabruz, at about 6:00 p.m., zL rus bearing No.AP-25W-66 being driven by its driver in a rash ru d negligent manner at a high speed, came in the opposite directio n and lrit the motor bike of the deceased, due to which the petitioncr fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He sought a comp rnsation of Rs. 1O,OO,OOO/-. 4 The respondent No.l remained ex_parte

5. The respondent No.2/lnsurance Company has fi cd counter tlenying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence 2 ,io., l.rACMA No-662 2021 of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that their company would not be liable to pay any compensation in case of any violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

6. The respondent Nos.3 and 4/RTC has also liled counter denying tfre averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that in case if any compensation is awarded by this Court, it is only the owner and insurance company that are liable to pay compensation and that the Corporation is not the oumer of the bus and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

7. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- 1 2 Whetter tte pleaded aeidenl had occurred resulting in injuies to the petttiorer, Abdul Jabbar, due to rash and. negl@ent driving of Bus bearing regi-stration No.AP-25W-66 bg its driuer? Whether petitioner is entitled to aftg @npensatton, if so, at uhat Etantum and uthat is tte Eabilitg of the Reqtondenl,s?

3. To tthat relief?"

8. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.Al to A18. On behalf of the respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked. ) 3 ETD,] \4ACMA No.662 2021

9. Based the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,68,848/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the s;aid award, the present appeal is hled by the claimant.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri A.V.K.S. prrrsad, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri p. Harinath (h ripta, learned counsel for respondent No.2. I l. [.earned counsel for t]re appeltant has subrn tted that the injured-petitioner was aged '40' years and was do ng Transport Business and that he sustained four fracture in juries in the accident and that he suffered a lot during the pericci of treatment. He further submitted that the tribunal has grantr:d only Rs.1,OO,000/- towards pain and suffering and pray,:d to enhance the same. He further argued that the future medicr expenses are not considerecl by the tribunal and that the petilione - was inserted with implants for treating his fractures which need; to be removed in future, that would also incur the expenditure. He therefore, prayed to award reasonable amount towards ir Lture medical expenses and thus, prayed to enhance the compensarion.

12. karned counsel for the respondents on the cr.her h.and has submitted that the tribunal has rightly awarded co npensalion of Rs.25,0O0/- for each grievous injury. Further, he a rgued that no proof is filed with regard to the future medical expen,;es that would \ \ 4 aao,, MACMA No.662 2021 be incurred by the petitioner and that in the absence of any proof, no amount needs to be awarded under this head. He thus, prayed to uphold the order and decree passed by the tribunal.

13. In view of the above rival contenLions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:- 1 2 3 Whether daimqnt is entitled to enhoncernent of ampersation? Wether tle Order and Decree of the Trtbunal need ang irterferene ? To uhat relief ?

14. Point No.1: a) The grievance of the claimant is that he is awarded a very meager amount of compensation and hence, prayed to enhance the same under the head of pain and suffering and for future medical expenses. It is borne out by record that the petitioner has susfained four grievous injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident. b) PW t has deposed with regard to the injuries and the treatment underwent by him and has further relied upon the evidence of PW2 to 4. c) PW3/Anand Naragam is the Orthopedic Surgeon at Care Hospital, Banjara Hills, his evidence reveals that the pelitioner sustained four fracture injuries and that he has treated the petitioner with nailing implant for the fractures of femur and ankle and the petitioner was also treated for skull fracture by / / 5 ETD,J MACMA No.662 2021 Neurosurgeon. He further deposed that the impJant needs to be removed at a later stage and that the petitior er was under treatment in their hospital frorn 23.06.2013 till O 1.0 /.2013. d) PW2 /Mohd. Mujeeb is the Billing Manager oi Care Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner unde n yent inpatient treatment from 23.06.2013 to O1.OT.2013 and thal the petiLioner has paid Rs.2,98,848/- towards the inpatient final trjll. e) PW4/Dr. Vamshee Mohan Beeran, Ort-r,rpedic Neuro Surgeon of care Hospital, his evidence further re,eals that the petitioner sustained the following injuries:_" l) Mukiple abrasions over forehead, 2l B/L black eye present, 3) 2 cm x I x m abrasion over anterior upper 1/3rd of left leg, 4) 3 cm suturcd would over anterior upper 1/3rd of left leg, 5) S cms satured worrnd over right thigh, abnormal mobility swelling & Deformitj,/3rd o_r right thigh,, and that he has treated the petitioner for the said ie uries Ex.A6 is the discharge summary issued by their hospitat. It is further elicited in his cross examination that the petitione _ cal do his normal day to day activities, but has lost sensation of smell, he stated that he has not issued any disability certificat: Ex.AS is the discharge summary of care Hospitar, which reverrls that the petitioner was admitted on 25.06.2013 and di: charged on O1.O7.2013. Ex.A6 is the Medico-Legal Certilicate issLred by Care Hq;pital. As per Ex.A6, he sustained "RTA with llead Injury, \ ETO,J MACMA No.662-2021 ( 6 Anterior Cranial Fossa Basal Plate # With Ethmoid#' Right Temporal Bone #'# Right Femur # Right Shift Femor; # Shaft Right; Fibunal Bimolleleolal # Right Ankle'" It is also elicited that initially he went to Osmania Hospital and from there he went to Care Hospital on 23.06.2013' Ex'A10 reveals that the petitioner attended outpatient follow up treatment in Orthopedic Department' and Ex.All is a set of X-rays pertaining to the petitioner' Thus' it reveals that the petitioner underwent treatment at Care Hospital under Neuro Deparment and also the Orthopedic Department' 0 A set of prescriptions under Ex'A1O discloses that he was attending outpatient Department at Care Hospital for consultation with Orthopedician during the year 20 13 & 20 14 Ex'AS is the discharge summary disclosing the injury sustained by the petitioner to his "Right Femur, Right Shift Femor' Shaft Right' Fibu1a and also at Right Ankle' Therefore' it is elicited that as contended by the petitioner, he has sustained grievous fracture injuries to his right leg and also to the skull' In all' there appears to be four grievous injuries and he also underwent surgeries during his treatment as inpalient in Care . Hospital' Therefore' the petitioner must have underwent acute pain and suffering during the said period. It further reveals that he attended outpatient consultations during the year 2O14 also' Therefore' the Tribunal I 7 ETD,J MACMA No.662_2021 has granted Rs. l,OO,0OO/_ towards pain and suffe:ing by awarding Rs.25,OO0/- per injury. d Considering the nature of injuries and the p lin underwent by the petitioner, the injuries to skull, which wotrl,l cause much more pain and suffering to ttre pedtioner, anoth:r amount of Rs.2S,000/- is enhanced under this head. h) With regard to the future medical expens,-.!.. though no estimation is submitted by the petitioner, it is elic:ted fi.om the evidence of pW2 that the petitioner requires future reatrnent for implant removal. Considering ttte said fact and the evidence on record, it is opined that an amount of Rs.S0,OOO/ ., if 6lranted would be just and reasonable for the implant removal i) Hence, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.75,OlO/- Point No. I is answered accordingly.

14. PoINT No.2: \ \ It is held that the order and decree of the Tribuna need to be modified with regard to the quantum of compensation. This rlourt has enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,43,g4 a/ _ t -r.m that of Rs.5,68,84gl_ that is awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 8 Er;,j MACMA No.662 2021

15. PTOINT NO.3: In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 03.03.202O in M.V.O.P.No.396 of 2Ol4 passed by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-The Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensaLion from Rs.5,68,848/- to Rs.6,43,848/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @

7.5%o per annum from the date of c'laim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. The respondents are 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 is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SII/-AHilIED'T-BDUL_LAKHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, N/

1. The MACT-cum-Chief Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad' (with if any) 2. One CC to SRl. A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl.P.Harinatha Guptha' Advocate IOPUC] 4. Tyvo CD CoPies HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.662 of 2021 T € SI4 o( I o C) )- I 0tl ) u5 v * J" -..'..'' (:)/..,-;' .;a '- c ;,11-tl\ M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I' \, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCEL NEO US APPEAL No: 6620F 2021 Between: Abdul Jabbar, S/o. LateAbdul Sultan, Abdul SattarAged about40 years, Occ Transport Business, PJo. 22-3-26, Yakutpura, Hyderabad. .Appella nt/Petitioner AND

1. G., Saritha, Wo. Pramod Reddy, age. Major, Occ. Business, P.Jo. 1-21150, Manik Bhandrar, Nizamabad District.

2. The New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd., TP-HUB, Madan Mohan Buildings, R.P. Road, Secunderabad Now shifted to New lndia Assurance Co. Ltd., 1,2 and 3, lndustrial Development A$ea, Habsiguda, Uppal, Hyderabad - 500 007, rep. by Manager.

3. A.P. State Road Transport, Bus Bhavan, Musheerabad, Hyderabad -500 020, Rep. by Managing Director.

4. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Nizamabad Depot, Nizamabad District, Telangana, Rep. by Depot Manager. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to submit this Memorandum of Civil Misc. Appeal to this Hon'ble Court against the Award/Order passed in O.P.No.396114 dated 31312020 by MACT-cum-Chief Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad for the following ORDER: 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 petition and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.VX.s.Prasad, for the Appellant and of sri p.Harinadh (-,uptha, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the appeal be and hereby is parfly allowec, modifvino the order -in wi.v.o.p.No.396 0iibi4-D;;;1; and decree dated 03/03/2020 the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Ctaimi iriU rnrf:Crr:fl" -CI",ii of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderat ad. ennancino tt," compensation from Rs.5,68,849/- to Rs.6,43,8+trl and tht;;h;n;;; amount of- compensation shall carry interest A i .;X pui ;n;Jm f;;; the date of claim petition till realization;

2. That the interest for the period of delay if any, is for,eited; 3. That the respondents are directed to deposit the r:ornpensation amount with accrued interest within a period oi two morrtrrs'rrom inJ a;i;-;i l?g1tl.9l3-!opy of this Judsrirent after deductirri 1n. ,rili.,iir-r."y) arreaoy oeposrted: 4. That on such deposit, the craimant is entifled ro withdraw the said 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appe;tl. amount without furnishing any security; SD'- AHMED ABDULLA KHAN ASSISTAMT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII i\ i\ SIECTION OFFICER To,

1. The MACT-cum-Chief Judge, C.C.C., Hyderabad. (vri h if any) 2. One CC to SRt. A.V.K.S.prasad, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRLP.Harinatha Guptha, Advocate [OPUO] 4. Two CD Copies W l jR ii : \,,, .,, 17 t: ns ii ., \. 1r, '''i : ,l:,:- 'i- -\-. HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.662 of 2021 M.A.C.M.A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED \