T.Samapth Kumar v. 1. P.Kurma Rao

Counsel for the Respondent No.z: Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy MACMA.No.1617 of 2018 Appeal under section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the order dated 18-01-2O18 passed in M.V.o.P.No.1685 ot 2012 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad' Between: The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rtr Manager, lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad 500001. . by its Regional ...APPELLANT/F ESPONDENT No.2 AND

1. T.Samapth Kumar, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age:56 years, Occ: I Plot No.205, Street No.7, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hydertrl 2. P.Kurma Rao, S/o.Mallesh, Aged ,"j.r, d'"*=B:31: lil, R/o.H.No.9-188, ,ad - 500 076. )ENT/PETITIONER ss, Rl/o.Tandevasa village and Mandal, Srikakulam district. lA NO: 1 OF 2018 ..RESPO\ DENTS/RESP.No.1 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circ,t mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court mal be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and judgment dated 18.01.201!) t passed in MVOP No.1685 of 2O12 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad penJ ng disposal of the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A Rama Krishna Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.'l: Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON,BLE ]USTICE GADI PRAVEET{ KUMAR MACMA Nos.1612 and 1617 of 2018 :\\ -L2- 25 Between T.Sampath Kumar And

1. P.Kurma Rao and another Appellant Respondents. co MON JUDGM ENT z (per Honbte lustice Gadi Praven Kuma)

1. Heard Sri K.Hari lr4ohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.1612 of 2018 and respondent No'1 in MACMA No'1617 of 2018 and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No'2 in MACMA No.1612 of 2018 and appellant in MACMA No'1617 of 2018'

2. Since both the appeals arise out of the same award' they are being dispose.d of bY this common order.

3. The parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the MVOP'

4. The brief facts leading to filing of the MVOP No'1685 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal<um-)C(V Additional Chief Judge' City CivilCourt,Hyderabad(forshort,'ttreTribunal)arethaton19'05'2010the petitioner was travelling in a car bearing No'AP 28 CB 7479 from Orissa to Hyderabad and when the said car reactred near Ampolu junction' Srikakulam 2 District, at about 6.00 AM, one lorry bearing No.Ap 30 V 861 1 came in opposite direction and dashed the car as a result of which the I severe injuries including various other fracture injuries. ' :titioner sustained 'he petitioner was working as CEO of M/s. NMREC Private Limited and other o: :upations and used to get an amount of Rs.85,000/- per month. The petitioner vas aged about 56 years at the time of accident. On appreciation of the evide tce on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of th€ ash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded an amour,t of Rs.58,32,913/- towards compensation under all heads along with costs anc interest @8olo per annum from the date of petition till the date of decree an I thereafter at the rate of 6Yo per annum till payment.

5. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner preferred MACI4 \ No.1612 of 201g seeking enhancement of the compensation to Rs.1,47,45,()( 0/-, whereas the respondent No.2/Insurance Company had preferred Cross {ppeal in MACMA No.1617 of 2018 challenging the quantum of compensation r n the ground that the petitioner is not an assessee of the income tax.

6. On hearing the learned counsel on record and consic< ring the pleadings and documents, the Tribunal framed the following issues for s consideration: 1) Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligerrt driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 30 V 8631 causing injuries to the petiti,: er? 2) Whether the petitioner is entifled For comtEnsation? If so, to 1at extent aM from whom? 3) To what relie? 3

7. On behalf of the petitioner PWs.1 to 8 were examined and Exs'A'l to A.2B were marked and on behalf of the respondent No.z/Imurance company RW.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked' S.TheTribunalonperusingthematerialavailableonrecordandbasingon the evidence of PWs.2 to 4 who deposed that the petitioner sufferd 74o/o physical disability and 50o/o mental disability both are permanent in nature and the total disability comes to l24o/o and the loss of earning capacity is 100%, held that the petitioner suffered disability at 650/o. Apart from considering the ageofthepetitionerat56yearstaking.8,asmultiplieralongwithVarious other heads came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.58,32,913/- along with interest. 9'LearnedcounselfortheappellantinMACMANo.l6l2of20lScontended that the learned Tribunal awarded a meager amount towards compensation of Rs.58,33,000/- out of the claim made by the petitioner at Rs'1,47,45'000/- and failed to consider the loss of earning cpacity of the petitioner at 100o/o which was proved by examining Doctors PWs'2,3 and 4 who treated the petitioner deposedthattheappellantsufferedT4o/ophysiraldisabilityand50o/omental disability but the Tribunal considered the loss of earning capacity to be 650lo only. Aoart from this the appellant in MACMA No'1612 of 2018 contended that the learned Tribunal awarded fl€ager amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering though the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/-, as the petitioner to 4 suffer pain throughout his life time. Similarly, learned cout sel contended that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of t arnings though the petitioner is entitled and claimed Rs.18,75,000/- thereby co rtended to enhance the compensation.

10. On the other hand, Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, lear red counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company in MACMA No.1617 of 201t1 contended that the petitioner is not an income tax assessee and no Form N0 L6A or TDS or any authenticated documents like PAN card, discharge vouchel , pay slips etc., are filed and no profession tax is deducted and in the absen<r of any income tax returns relying on self serving statement of the petiti(rr er considering the income of the injured at Rs.65,000/- per month and grrt ting an amount of Rs.9,48,000/- towards attendant charges and arriving the r ompensation under all heads at Rs.58,33,000/- is excessive and contrary lI law. It is further contended that without prejudice to the above contentions, even assuming that the income of the injured was considered at Rs.65,000/- rer month and the disability at 650lo, the petitioner is entitled to compensa .ion on account of injuries would come to Rs.35,66,160/- but not Rs.40,56,00C

11. Learned counsel finally contended that the at the rn )st the petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,41,689/- but not Rs.58,33,000/- therebl' :ontended that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation of Rs.7,91,311/. . Elgtt- ttt:- :*' :- €/ !1'rt' 5 t2. We have given our earnest consideration to the pleadings and contentions advanced on behalf of the respective parties aM perused the record.

13. The learned Tribunal considered the evidence of PW.3 a Neuro Surgeon at Life Hospital, Hyderabad, who treated the petitoner as in?atient and stated that the petitioner sustained contusion of left frontal lobe of brain and fracture of right temporal bone, fracture of 5, 6, 7 ribs on right side, left heamothorex, fracture of right acetabulam. PW.3 further stated that the petitioner suffered pelvic bone injury and cannot walk without attender or walk€r and the disability is perrnanent. PW.3 also stated that since the petitioner is suffering from memory impairment referred the petitioner to PW.'l-Practicing Clinical Psychologist and PW.4 after examining the petitioner found intellectual deterioration which is severe in nature, disfunctioning of robe memory impairment which according to PW.4 are permanent and there is 50o/o mental disability. Even as per the contentions of PWs.5 to 8 apart from Exs.A.1 to A28 clearly disclose that the petitioner is suffering from permanent disability and lost earning capacity as claimed by him. \ L4. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is designed to provide relief to victims of motor accidents, ensuring that compensation is awarded in a manner that addresses the true extent of their suffering. Therefore, this Court is guided by the overarching principle that technicalities should not defeat the legitimate a---- 6 rights of victims who have already suffered irreversible los ;. In the present case, the petitioner has suffered permanent, lifelong disabilit es, both physical and mental, which have severely impacted his earning capi( fy and quality of life.

15. Given the nature of these injuries, which have result: I in a permanent and irrevercible loss, the Tribunal's approach in awardir ; compensation, though contested, was in line with the overarching objectiv€ ; of the Act. The learned Tribunal is justified in extending a degree of lenienrr to the petitioner and in granting the compensation appropriately. This Court t r wever deem it fit not to interfere with the well versed award passed by the le z 'ned Tribunal, as the quantum of compensation is therefore, recalibratrr under various permissible trcads so as to achieve a legally sustainable a I ard befitting the beneficial nature of the enactment.

16. Accordingly, MACMA Nos.1612 and t6tt of 201ti, along with all connected applications, are dismissed confirming the awa r passed by the Tribunal in MVoP No.1685 of 2ot2 dated 18.01.2018. Thenr ;hail be no order as to costs. To, //TRUE COPY//

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Civil Court, at Hyderabad. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUr )] 3. One CC to Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL EI PUTY REGISTRAR \ r iECTION OFFICER itiorr rl Chief Judge, City HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212025 ,jtl o,+ i.\^' " , .l? ttB il6 (;) / .-: "L i COMMON JUDGMENT+COMMON DECII EE MACMA.No.161 2 and 1617 of 2018 DISMISSING THE MACMA'S V +, [ 34sl ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR MACMA Nos: 1612 and 1617 of2018 MACMA.No.1612ot 2018 Between: T.Samapth Kumar, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age:56 years, Occ: Nil, R/o.H.No.9-188, Plot No.205, Street No.7, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad. ...Appellant AND

1. P.Kurma Rao, S/o.Mallesh, Aged major, Occ: Business, Rl/o.Tandevasa village and Mandal, Srikakulam district.

2. -The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad 500001. ...Respondents MACMA.No.1617 of 2018 Between: The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids, Hyderabad 500001. ..,AP PE LLANT/RESPON DE NT No.2 AND

1. T.Samapth Kumar, S/o.Krishnaiah, Age:56 years, Occ: Nil, Ri/o.H.No.9-188, Plot No.205, Street No.7, HMT Nagar, Nacharam, Hyderabad - 500 076. 2. P.Kurma Rao, S/o.Marresh, Ased ."j",, d;:t;:.",X5:H,:ltJH:)iS village and Mandal, Srikakulam district. ..RESPONDENTS/RESP.No.1 Appeals under Section 173 of M.V.Act aggrieved by the order dated 18-01-2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1685 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Order and Decree of the Court Below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K. Hari Mohan Rec iy, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA.No.1612 of 20'lB and Respondent No.1 irt VACMA.No.1617 of 2018 and of Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the lespondent No.2 in MACMA.No.1612of 2O1B and Appellant in MACMA.No.1617 of : 018. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA.Nos.1612 and 1617 of 2018 be and lr rreby are dismissed confirming the award and decree passed by the Tribuna r MVOP.No.1685 of 2012 dated 18-01-2018; and

2. That there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// SO/- MOHD.ISMAIL DI PUTY RE

1.' I ,;ECT|ON OFFTCER To, 't. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additiorr rl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies Kam/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 111212025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1612 and 1617 of 2018 DISMISSING THE MACMA's t w J +