One CC to SRI v. SRINIVASA RAO

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the award dated 17-7-20'19 in M.V.O.P.No. 1114 ot 201S on the fite of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: l,Nagamani, Wo T.Laxmaiah aged 40 years, Occ: Tailoring H.No .12-1-1 122, Old Mallepally Asif Nager, Hyderabad-. AND ...APPELLAN-T/ Claim petitioner 'I . K.Anil Kumar, S/o K.Prakash, aged 27 years, Occ: Driver of Crime vehicle H No 12-1-6i6, Sitaram Bagh, Asif Nager Hyderabad.

2. Mohd Shoukat Ullah Khan, S/o Mohd Liakatullah, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Crime Vehicle, H.No '16-6-281, Kattalguda, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.

3. Shriram General lnsurance Company, Limited Represented by its Divisional officer, H.No 4-1-37011, Beside Hotel Jaya lnternational, Reddy Hostel Road, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTSi Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. V. SRINIVASA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRI S. HARINATH REDDY The Court delivered the following Judgment: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA'TARA M.A.C.M. A.No.3348 OF 2019 JUDG MENT:- I Heard Sri V.Srinivasarao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S.Harinath Reddy, learned counsel for respondert No.3. Perused the record

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/pe.itioner aggrieved by the order, dated 17.07.2019 passed in M.V.O.p.No I114 of 2015 by the learned Chairman. Motor Accident Claims 'f -ibu nal-cu m-XXVI Additional Chref Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabac (for short, ,the Tribunal'), wherein compensation of Rs.2,58,000/. with interest at

7.5o/o per annum was awarded against the claim pet tion filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant met with an accident on 05.02.2015 when she was travelling as a pillion rider along with her husband on Kinetic Honda bearing No.AF 2gp 9796 from Rangamahal X road, Chaderghat, Hyderabad. At thtt time, one Tata ACE bearing No.AP 11Y 5989 came in a rash and rregligent manner with high speed and dashed the Kinetic Honda, cue to which the appellant fell down and sustained grievous injuries and Fractures. The appellant was shifted to Sai Krishna Neuro Hospit; l, Hyderabad for I I 2 surgery and treatment and was treated from 05.02.2015 to 2t.02.20215 as an inpatient. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, a claim petition is filed seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. In support of the claim petition, the appellant got examined P.Ws.l to 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A17. Respondent No.3 got examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to 83. The Tribunal having perused the record and considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and awarded compensation of Rs.2,58,000/- with interest al 7.5o/o per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant stated that she is entiiled to Rs.72,000/- towards loss oF income, but meager amount of Rs.18,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal, transportation charges are about Rs.20,000/- but Rs.5,000/- was awarded. The medical record is filed showing expenses of more than Rs.2,L4,367/-, whereas Rs.2,10,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. As per Ex.As-estimation certificate issued by International prosthetic Eye Center for ear prosthesis treatment requires an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- but no compensation is awarded. The appellant has lost her left pinna ear, hence, she is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, but the Tribunal l. 'l --. J awarded only Rs.25,000/- towards pain and sufferirg. The appellant sought enhancement on all the aforementioned counts.

6. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant reiterated the enhancement sought under various hr:ads as detailed in the grounds of appeal, whereas the learned couns:l for respondent No.3 opposed the same.

7. As per the record, the oral evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 is that she is a tailor and is earning an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month. There is no evidence about the income of the appellant as a tailor. Therefore, in the absence of evidence regtrrding the same, notional income can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month and the appellant also being a house-wife, notional income of house-wife can be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month. Hence, the total rrotional income of the appellant can be taken at Rs.9,000/- per montr. The appellant suffered one grievous injury. Therefore, Rs.25,O0O/- is awarded towards pain and suffering by the Tribunal and the same need not be interfered with. None was examined to ascertain he disability and therefore, no compensatlon is awarded on the said ( ount. This Court is of the opinion that loss of left pinna ear would cerl ainly cause some percentage of disability in hearing. At the same time, loss of hearing capacity will not affect the functioning of the appellart as a house wife or as a ta'[o r. However, it cannot be ruled out that there would be -a/ I I 4 discomfort due to partiar hearing in future. Therefore, an amount of Rs.SO,OOO,/- is awarded towards loss of income due to hearing problem instead of Rs. 18,000/- for the inconvenience to be suffered by tfre.gppellant for the rest of her rife. Further, the Tribunar awarded Rs.2,1O,OOO/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, etc. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.S,ooo/- towards transportation and there is no need to interfere with the same. Ex.A5 estimation certificate shows an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for treatment of ear prosthesis. On the basis of Ex.A5, Rs.1,OO,OOO/- is awarded towards treatment of ear prosthesis. In total, the appellant is entifled to an amount oF Rs.3,9O,OOO/- towards compensation. B. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is party allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,5g,000/_ to Rs.3,9O,OOO/- with interest @ 9olo per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.3/insurance company at first instance and then recover the same from respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. t 1 ------:----.1 '^.';.' " ',f ,/' / 5 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this i,ppeal, shall stand closed. To, SD'- M,OSMAN ALI BAIG AS]]ISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \i ECTION OFFICER '1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum X.(V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. ( with records ) 2. One CC to SRI V. SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate [OpU()] 3. One CC TO SRI S HARINATH REDDY, Advocate (OplJC) 4. Two CD Copies kul/l'}SL I I HIGH COURT DATED:0'l /08/2025 +DECREE JUDGMENT MACMA.No.3348 of 2019 (r' ,i ii l'" 292, f'' t (-) \i n'. * .'\ PARTI,Y ALLOWTNG I'HI] APPEAL WIl'HOUT COSI'S @ q ,)A r8 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A. NO: 3348 OF 2019 Between: T.Nagamani, Wo T.Laxmaiah aged 40 years, Occ: Tailoring H.No 12-1-l'122, Old Ivlallepally Asif Nager, Hyderabad. AND ...APPELLANT/ Glaim Petitioner

1. K.Anil Kumar, S/o K.Prakash, aged 27 years, Occ: Driver of Crime vehicle H.No '12-1-616, Sitaram Bagh, Asif Nager Hyderabad.

2. Mohd Shoukat Ullah Khan, S/o Mohd Liakatullah, aged: Major, Occ: Owner of Crime Vehicle, H.No '16-6-281, Kattalguda, Osmanpura, Hyderabad.

3. Shriram General lnsurance Company, Limited Represented by its Divisional officer, H.No 4-1-37011, Beside Hotel Jaya lnternational, Reddy Hostel Road, Abids, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS/ Respondents Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the award dated 17-7-2019 in M.V.O.P.No.'11'14 ol 2015 on the file of the Cou( of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: This Appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeals the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri V. Srinivasa Rao, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri S. Harinath Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 This Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. That the M.A.C.M.A. be and hereby is partly allowed. 2. Thal the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby is enhanced from Rs. 2,58,000/- to Rs. 3,90,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.3/ lnsurance Company at first instance and then relover the same from respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle.

3. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this Appr:al. SDr- M.OSMAN ALI BAlc NT REGISTRAR oP'r I ',i $j:6no^, oFFtcE R To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal curr XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Two C.D.Copies Kul/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 DECRI'E MACMA.No.3348 of 2019 PARI'I-Y ALLO\[, IN( } ]'I]E APPEAI- WIl'HOIJl- C'OSTS sl? lor