The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Cross Objectori Respondent . SRI AKKAM EASI- /VAR Counsel for the Respondent . SRI V. SAMBASIVA RAO The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT l"\ 1 macma 315_2019 & xohi-52_2019 N8K,,I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A. No.315 of 2019 And CROSS OBJECTIONS No.52 of 2019 COMMONJUDGMENT: MACMA No.3l5 of 2019 is filed by the insurance company against the Order dated 15.10.2018 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad, in M.V.O.P. No. 63 1 of 2016. By the impugned Order, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,13,700 to the claimant/injured, with proportionate costs and interest at 7 .5%o per annum, holding respondent No.2 (driver of the crime vehicle), and respondent No.3 (insurer of the crime vehicle) jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

1.1 The claimant frled Cross-Objections No.52 of 2019, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. As the matters arise out of the same impugned order, they were heard together and taken up for common disposal. For convenience of reference, the parties will be referred to as the claimant and the insurance company.

2. Brief facts ofthe case, so far as relevant for dealing with these appeals, are that on 09.10.2016, at around 8:00 PM, the claimant (Mr. Ravi Nakkala), was proceeding from Sadashivpet Mllage to Narmetta Village in Warangal District, on his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle (bearing No.AP-36P-2270) and when he reached near Peddamma Temple at Bachannapet Village, a Glamour motorcycle (bearing No.TS-03-EB-2645) coming behind the claimant's motorcycle, and driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner, 2 mac r,315_2019 & xobj_52_2019 NBK, J dashed into the motorcycle of the claimant, causing tlLr accident, and the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

2.1 PW-2, Ganti Mahesh, testified before the Trit occurrence of accident. The Tribunat, after considering t. PWs. I to 7 and documents Ex.Al to ,A.3l and Ex.Xl tc unal with regard to e oral evidence of --x.X6 adduced on behalf of the claimant; and the oral evidence of RW.l anJ documents Ex,.B 1 to 83 adduced on behalf of the insurance company, pil sed the impugned Order dated 15.10.2018 awarding compensation ofRs.14 3,700 with interest at 7.5Yo per annum, hotding respondent No.2 (owner of {} bearing No.TS-03-EB-2645) and respondent No.3 (in motorcycle) jointly and severally liable to pay the comp€r amour motorcycle ;urer of Glamour sation.

2.2 Aggrieved by the Order dated 15.10.2() 8, the insurance company filed MACMA No.315 of 2019, and the crimant filed Cross Objections No.5 2 of 20 I 9-

3. Heard Mr. V. Sambasiva Rao, leamed counsel for the insurance company; and Mr. Akkam Eshwar, leamed counsel for tt< claimant. Perused the record.

4. Leamed counsel for the insurance company esserl the insured vehicle (TS 03 ED 2645\ was not involved i allegedly occurred on 09.10.2016 at 8:30 PM; that the ir actually riding a d ift-erent vehicle - Motor Cycle No, AP i skidded, teading to self-inflicted injuries; that the ir: ally contends that r the accident that rred claimant was 6P2270-which rred vehicle was fraudulently planted as the accident vehicle, in collusion , zith the police and the vehicle owner, to claim compensation from the insurr: deliberately suppressed crucial medical documents - 11 Medico Legal Record dated 10.10.2016 (yashoda Horl Injury Certificate dated 02.12.2016 (Yashoda Hospital) ; that the claimant ecifically Ex.B.2: ital) and Ex.B.3: lnd these records ( 3 macma_315_2019 & xobj_52,2019 NBK, J clearly state that the injuries were due to a "two-wheeler skid',, and not due to a collision or third-party vehicle involvement; that the alleged eyewitness (PW2) admitted in cross-examination that he did not report the accident to the police; that this undermines the credibility of pW2 and presence at the accident scene, suggesting he did not witness the accident but was brought in to support the false claim; that the hospital entry, made by the injured,s brother (Karunakar), clearly mentions a two-wheeler skid accident, and this hospital entry contradicts the later claim that another vehicle (i.e., the insured vehicle) was involved, further highlighting fabrication; that the Tribunal awarded a substantial compensation of Rs. 14,13,700/- with 7 .5o/o interest per annum, despite lack of credible evidence linking the insured vehicle to the accident, suppression of key documentary evidence by the claimant, contradictions in witness testimony and hospital records and hence the award was arbitrary, erroneous, and unjust. It is also contended that the injured, Nakkala Ravi, did not appear before the tribunal for cross-examination, despite being physically and mentally fit (as seen from his attending the court and using a cellphone); that his avoidance casts doubt on the veracity of his claims and suggests deliberate evasion to avoid scrutiny; that the injured was allegedly driving the bike (AP 36 P 2270) without a driving licence and without knowing how to drive, leading to the skid and self-inflicted injuries, and hence the accident was a result of the claimant's own negligence, not the fault of a third party or the insured vehicle.

5. Leamed counsel for the claimant, on the contrary, contends that the Tribunal awarded Rs. 14,13,700/- as compensation, which is grossly insufficient compared to the claimed amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-; that the award fails to take into account the full extent of injuries, permanent disability, future loss of eamings, and the ongoing need for medical care and rehabilitffiffi; that the Tribunal erred in law and on facts by failing to properly 4 macn. 315 2019 & xobi 52_2019 NBl( J evaluate the oral and documentary evidence presented by the claimanq that there was no detailed analysis of the earnings and disalr claimant, which led to a mechanical and unjust compensation; that the Tribunal awarded a consolidated ity ofthe injured determination of mount for loss of earnings and disabitity without assessing the injured's oc< rpation before the accident, and without determining the percentage of perm a rent disability, and without considering how the disability would impact future employability and income generation; that the Tribunal completely ignored t of the injured claimant, and especially considering that th: .e future prospects injured was young and had potential for career growth, which is now sever] y impacted due to the injuries; that the principle laid down in landmark ju<[1 ments (e.9.,, Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporationt, National Inswt nce Co. v. Pranay Sethiz) regarding future prospects has not been followel that the claimant submitted medical bills totaling Rs. 10,82,6841 (Ex. A : did not grant full reimbursement of these expen; justification; that the entire medical cost should have ber,l ) but the Tribunal s, without valid awarded, as these are actual and necessary expenses directly arising from t-l r accident; that the Tribunal failed to grant any amount towards future or Ic low-up treatment, which is inevitable in the case ofserious or long-term injt r will require continued medical attention, physiothe I surgeries or assistive devices, which were not factored intc es; that the injured py, and possibly the award; that the compensation awarded is not just and fair, especially con:;i lering the pain and suffering endured, the permanent disability and disfigur ment (if any), the impact on quality of life, social mobility, and indepenc :nce, the Tribunal failed to balance these human considerations with the hrt rcial components. I (2009) 6 scc 121 , (2017) 16 SCC 580 l 5 macma_315_2019 & xobj-s2-2019 N8K, t

6. At the outset, the occurrence of accident on 09.10.2016 at about 8:00 PM involving Splendor motorcycle (No.AP-36P-2270) ridden by the claimant, and the claimant sustaining injuries on his vehicle being hit by Glamour motorcycle (No.TS-03-EB -2645) from behind, near .Peddamma Temple at Bachannapet Village, Warangal District, is not in dispute.

6.1 A perusal of the impugned Order would show that PW-2 (Sri Ganti Mahesh) deposed before the Tribunal that he was proceeding on

09.10.2016 at about 08:00 PM from Sadashivpet to Bachannapet side, and he saw one person proceeding on bike No.AP-36P-2270, on extreme left side of the road with great care and diligence and when he reached near Peddamma Temple at Bachannapet Village and mandal, Warangal District, suddenly a Glamour motorcycle bearing No.TS-03-EB -26t45 came in a rash and negligent manner with high Speed and dashed the inj ured motorcycle from behind and the injured fell down on the road and sustained injuries.

6.2 Further, RW- 1 during his cross examination admitted that the policy was in force as on the date of accident and the policy covered third- party risks and the petitioner (i.e., claimant) is a third-party and the liability is fastened on the rider of crime vehicle (i.e., Glamour motorcycle) in the charge sheet and the documents relied on by the petitioner (claimant) also stand against the rider of the crime vehicle (i.e., Glamour motorcycle); and therefore the contentions of the leamed Standing Counsel for the insurance Company that the claimant sustained injuries due to skidding of his Splendor motorcycle, or that the crime vehicle (Glamour motorcycle) has been planted for illegal gain, or that PW-2's non-informing the police undermines the credibility of involvement of crime vehicle etc., cannot be countenanced.

6.3 A perusal of the impugned Order would show that the claimant suffered injuries, namely, Severe TBI, Lt Frontal Contusion, Lt FT SDH, Rt 5 mac r _315 2019 & xobj_52_2019 NBK,I r- Temporal EDH and other multiple injuries all over the I ody. He had taken treatment initially at Govemment Area Hospital, Jangao r and later at MGM Hospital, Warangal, and later at Yashoda Hospital as inpzl ent on 10.10.2016, operated and discharged on 26.102016 due to financial constraint, and on same day admitted at Osmania General Hospital, Hyder,r ,ad, as inpatient on

26.10.2016 for further management and discharged on [ . admitted as inpatient in Sri Sai Srinivasa Hospita! 01.11.2016 and discharged on 25.11.2016, and again t .11.2016, and later at Hyderabad on lmitted in Sri Sai Srinivasa Hospital, Hyderabad on29.04.2017 and discher and the claimant/PW- I deposed that he incurred Rs.l2, ;ed on 13.05.2017; t0,000 for medical treatment, extra nourishment,, and that he is undergoing tr )atment.

6.4 The Tribunal awarded Rs.8,80,000 (as agr.i rst Ex.A5 medical bill for Rs.10,82,684) towards medicines and investigati rns, and Rs.30,000 towards food and extra-nourishment; however, the medic I bitls under Ex.A8 (Rs.85,574), and Ex.A10 (Rs.77,701), which are Firr I Bills of Sri Sai Srinivasa Hospital, and the medical/pharmacy bi I s under Ex.A 1 1 (Rs.68,540.42p), and Ex.A12 (Rs.30,837) have r< t been awarded. Considering the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by the claimant, this Court is inclined to award the said amor rts also mentioned under Exs.A8, A10, A11, and A12, totaling to Rs.2,62,65',.42 (rounded off to Rs.2,65,000), over and above the Rs.8,80,000 awarded b1 the Tribunal.

6.5 With regard to the contention of permanerrl disability, there is neither oral rior documentary evidence adduced by the r laimant before the Tribunal. On the contrary, it is the specific recording rf the Tribunal, at Paragraph 9 (e) answering Issue No.2, which reads as foU tws: "(e) ...... the evidence of PW-7 shows that the pet t oner was on temporary employment / under probation and that no doctors, who treated the petitioner, declared the petitioner as a perm€ rent disabled person, this Court feels it fit and proper to award a lurn rsum .....". 7 macma_315_2019 & xo bl_52_2079 NBK, J

6.6 Further, it can be seen from the Appendix of Evidence (Witnesses Examined) mentioned in the impugred Order that PW-3 (Dr. Anandh Bala Subramaniam), and PW-5 (Dr. Mustafa Faisal), that there is no evidence adduced by the treating doctors about any disability, let alone permanent disability that could affect future eaming capacity. Further, except a statement by PW-7 who is said to be Commercial Executive of Softcell Company that the claimant lost his job due to disability, there is no mention about either the nature of disability treating doctors i.e., PW-3, PW-5, who are competent to depose about disability, if any, and which is to be certified by the District Medical Board. In the absence of any authentic evidence in that regard, it cannot be inferred that there is permanent disability. Therefore, the contention of leamed counsel for the petitioner with regard to permanent disability cannot be countenanced; and in the absence of proven permanent disability, therefore there cannot be any assessment of loss of future eamings, or future prospects in the facts and circumstances ofthe case.

6.7 The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000 towards compensation for six grievous injuries (@ Rs.25,000 per injury); and Rs.20,000 towards transportation charges; and Rs.30,000 towards food and extra-nourishment; I and Rs.16,000/-'towards artendant charges for four months considering that the claimant might have taken bed rest. Considering the injuries suffered, this Court is inclined to award Rs.25,000 towards pain and suffering, and also enhance the attendant charges to Rs.30,000. The amounts awarded for food and extra nourishment, and transportation charges are just and reasonable.

6.8 The claimant is said to have been eaming Rs.20,825 per month, by working as Jr. Implementation Engineer at Softcell Technologies Ltd. Considering the evidence of PW-7 (Commercial Executive of the Company), \ I 8 macma 3 5-2019 & xobj-52-2019 NBK, J I the Tribunal has taken the monthly income as Rs.20,000/- f I the purposes of assessing loss of eamings and awarded Rs.2,40,0001 towar,l loss of earnings for one year. This Courl is inclined to enhance the tr re to 2'50'000 considering the entire monthly income of Rs'20,825' [n view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation awarded by the

7. Tribunal is enhanced as follows: Head injuries, and Pain and ations Medicines and I Grievous sufferin Trans Food and extra nourishment Attendant cha Loss of earnin s durin treatment Total Compensation awarded by the Tribunal Rs9 57 700 Rs 1,50,000 Compr)l sation enhan: d this Co rt l)( 11,4 Rs 1 71 100 Rs.20 000 Rs 30 000 Rs.16 000 Rs.2,40 000 Rs.14,'13,700 Rs20 lr0 Rs.30.l l0 Rs.30, )0 c00 Rs.2 5 ),000 Rs.16 a o

8. Accordingly, MACMA No.3l5 of 2019 filed h the insurance company is dismissed; and the cross-objections No.Sll of 2019 filed by the claimant is partly-allowed by enhancing the r ompensation to Rs.16,50,000; however, reducing the interest to 6Yo per lnnum from the date of claim petition till the date of actual paymenr , considering the judgment in Sarla Verma (xtpra). Miscellaneous petitiorr pending, if any' shall stand closed. ltrRue copvtl Sil /- MOHD. ISMAIL DEI UTY REgISTRAR i 1:) j .-cTb( oFFlcER To, The Chairman, MACT-Cum-l Additional Chief Judge' City ( 'ivil Court' 1 Secunderabad

2. One CC to SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Advocate [OPUCI 3 One CC to SRI AKKAM ESHWAR Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies ASR,/PSL .{ f,! t *gv 5 .. . .'.:,: HIGH COURT DATEDr18l8sl2025 ;iiTE o t_) ?l tt$ lu$ () ,1 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.315 & CROSS OBJECTIONS 52 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA ALLOWING THE CROSS OBJECTIONS I \t u IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT clvll MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3'15 & CROSS oBJECTTONS 52 0F 2019 tvl.A.Q.M.A. No.315 QF 2019r Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Manager, Legal Cell T.P.Hub, 2nd Floor, Church Building Tilak Nagar, Abids, Hyderabad - 01. AND APPELLANT

1. Ravi Nakkala, N.Ravi, S/o. Nakkala Gattaiah 26 years, Jr- lmplementation Engineer (Respondent is being in Coma, Rep by his father and Natural Guardian, Nakkala Gattaiah, S/o. Bakka Mallaiah 48 years, Agriculture) H.No.12-1 1-521l2/B, Warasiguda, Secunderabad.

2. Lakki Reddy Srikanth, Sio. Anji Reddy, Major, Business, H.No,8-15, Shivalayam Street Bachannapet Viltage and Mandal, Warangal District - 506 221. (Driver of Motor Cycle No.TS 03 ED 2645)

3. L Chandra Reddy, S/o. Anji Reddy, Major, Business, H,No.8-15, Shivalayam Street, Bachannapet Village and Mandal, Warangal District - 506 221. (Owner of Motor Cycle No.TS 03 ED 2645) RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree. dated 15-10-2018, in MVOP NO 631 of 2016 on the file of the Chairman, MACT-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad CRosso BJ cTtoNs E No .52 OF 201 9: Between: n*lE,i+l-q;,ffi i9d,t*;frt+i?tr;:di:rys,si1gr,", AND ... AppellanyResponden / )laimant ' iE:r,lJ:ili,fl ::rffi,,.?; rl,,fi ,,t fia?r^i;;#,"xfi ' ilfi 6f#,$'*1jftififfi,ffi,i,#ffi ; ;: ",,"" tf giil1.$"x,*i:tu,,oH,irli.?!i,lu,ir, ffi 1,fl ;33lo i1n;, ",, '"!,':#i:F:xrilft#fl "t )ndents " Respondents/Resp cross objections f vehicres n"t, ,g;;d"n1,."-o the order and Decree (RR 2 & 3 herein are not necessary parties to the Cross At )eal) ,** order 41 Rule : ,,it::ii :"". ot .,u'o'j"' or the MAC r.cu", ; ;;:,':;:; ffi"::*:nmgj:i I iT ORDER; This Appea cross objections comir perusrng the grounds o, ,rl'-1lo ,lT, and cross;il,";., ;:t the Lower court and ,n" arsumenrs of S. V Samba",,ll'l'"'-0""" ffi il;: Rao for the 'rr.rrr,I ,i' in cross objections on forhe;r 1s and upon Judsment itr d Decree of and uport hearing the t;Jff *: I:.,tn::: :; :HT:;:. ror cross objector in ..* d#,:il sec:i rn '173 "f "no o, ilj # Motor That this Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1' That this court be and hereby dismissed the MACMA whire parfly aflowing the Cross Objections. 2 That -the Rs.16,50,0001. compensation be and here by enhanced from Rs. 14,13,7OOt_ to That the interest is reduced to 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4 Save as afore said, the decree of the Tribunal is confirmed in all other aspects;

5. That there shall be no order to costs To fftrueuov 11 SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 3Ec" z1aa. Vll oAFr(tiA

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum_l Addl. Chief Judge, City 2. Two CD Copies. Civil Courts, Secunderabad. ASR\PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1810912025 DECREE MACMA.No.315 & CROSS OBJECTIONS 52 OF 2019 DISMISSING THE MACMA ALLOWING TTIE CROSS OBJECTIONS # \ro