The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI Y KISHORE BABU The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT I '1 HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRTYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.82O OF 2OL4 JUDGMENT: 1 . Dissatished with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum' - [l Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Mahabubnagar (in short, the Tribunal), in M.V.O.P.No .482 of 2008, dated 26.06.2012, the 1>etitioner in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking etlhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenicnce, the parties hereinafler be referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brie f facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,O00/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 24 .O5.2OO7 . lt is stated by the petitioner that on 24.O5.2OO7 at abolLt 12.15 noon, when thc petitioner aiong with her husband and claughter were proceeding on Scooter bearing No.AP-22D-825 from Satyanarayana Swamy temple cross-roads to tht:ir house at Sikilgeri, Narayanpet, a Cruiser bearing No.KA-33-9993 came from Yadgiri side in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the Scooter of the petitioner, due to which, ji1r.. MGP,I MACMA.No.820 of 2014 the petitioner, her husband and daughter fell down and sustained severe injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Governrnent Civil Hospital, Narayanpet, from there to Government Headquarters Hospital' Mahabubnagar and thereafter shifted to S'V'S'Hospital, Mahabubnagar and was treated as inpatient from 24 'O5'2OO7 to

09.Cr6.2007. It is stated by the petitioner that she underwent operation of closed reduction and K wire hxation and was bed- ridden and had to apply leave from Oa-O8'2OO7 and Iost leave title and earnings for the said period. Due to the said accident and injuries sustained by her, she is unable to lift weights with right hand and became permanently disabled and spent huge amounts towards medicines and treatment and hence Iiled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs 1,O0,0OO/- against the respondents.

4. Respondent No. 1/Owner of Cruiser bearing No'I{A-33- 9993 filed his counter denying the manner of accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner. He contended that as the subject Cruiser vehicle was insured with respondent No'2 with valid insurance policy, therefore, the compensation, if any, is awarded, respondent No.2 is liable for payment of the same and hence prayed to dismiss the claim against hirn' I 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.820 of 2014

5. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company hled its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, manner of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and expenses incurred by him and contended that the alleged accident occurred only due to the rash and negligence on part of the petitioner and as the owner and insurer of the said Scooter were not made as parties to the petition, the claim petition is Iiable to be dismissed and therefore prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

6. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:- L. It. IIL. TU U Whether tlrc accident ocatred on 24.O5.2O07 at about 12.15 noon, at Satganaragana cross roads in the limtts of NaraAanpe\ was due to rash and negligent diuing of drtuer of Cruiser beaing No.KA 33-999s? Wlether tLrc diuer of the offending uehicle was houing ualid diuing ticense as on tLLe date and time of occldent? Whether the hsurance policy uas in force as on the date ond time of accid.ent? Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation amount? If so, to uhat dmount and uhom? To ulhat retieJ? J 4 MGP,] MACMA.No.820 of 2014 7 . Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/ injured examined herself as PWl, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs'Al to A9 on her behalf. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, however, Ex.Bl-Copy of insurance policy was marked with consent

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the '642 /- along claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs'43 with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date oi deposit payable by both the respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same'

9. Heard arguments submitted by Sri N'Laxmi Narayana' learned counsel representing on behalf Smt'J'sandhya Rani' learned counsel for the appellant/ injured and Smt P Satya Manjula, Iearned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company who appeared through virtual mode' Perused the record.

10. The contentions of learned counsel for the ppellant/injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that i I I I I i i 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.820 of 2014 though the petitioner got examined PW2-Orthopedic Surgeon to prove about the injuries sustained by her, but the learned Tribunal did not consider his evidence and awarded very meager amount towards loss of earnings, pain and suffering, transportation and extra nourishment and failed to award amount towards attendant charges during the period of treatment undergone by her in the Hospital. He also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest @ 12ok per annum instead of 7 .5o/o and therefore prayed to allou, the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Tribunai, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.

12. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the appellant/ injured is entitled for e nhance ment of co mp ens atio n? POINT:- 13. Since there is no dispute about the manner of accident and liability of the respondents and since the findings arrived at 5 M6P,I MAcMA.No.820 of 2014 a, by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessity to once again decide the above said aspects. The only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

14. karned counsel for the appellant/ injured contended that though the petitioner got examined PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon to prove about the injuries sustained by him, but the Tribunai failed to consider his evidence and awarded meager compensation.

15. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their Hospital on 24.O5.2OO7 with injuries of swelling deformity of right wrist and had fracture of lower end of right radius and was operated on 25.05.2O07 and subsequently discharged on 09.O6.2007. He also deposed that the injury sustained by the petitioner is grievous fracture injury and assessed 20% disability to her right wrist. Further, Ex A3- Treatment Certificate issued by PW2 corroboratc with the evidence of PW2. A perusal of Certihcate issued by Mandal Educational Ofhcer, Nandipet, shows that the petitioner has been availed OCL on medical grounds from 12.06.20O7 to

08.08.2007 i.e, nearly for a period two months for which the 7 MG P,J MACMA,No.820 ot 2014 learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 16,00O/ - towards Ioss of earnings for the said period. This Court hnds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same.

16. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards fracture injury sustained by the petitioner. Hence, this Court, is inclined to award an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the said fracture injury. Though the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,O00/- torvards pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- towards transport and nourishment, this Court hnds the same to be meager and hereby enhances the said amounts as detailed under: - S.No. Name Head Loss of earnings Amount Awarded Tribunal Rs. 16,0OO/- Amount awarded this Court \ \ 1 2 4 5 Frac tur _e luury - Medical Ex CNSCS Rs.7,6a2/- Rs.25,0OO/ - Transport Extra- nourishment Rs.5,000/ - Rs.10,00O/- Pain and suffering Rs. 15,000/- Rs.20,00O a MGP,J MACMA.No.820 of 2014 6 7 Attendant char CS TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.5 000 Rs.43,642 /- Rs.83,642l- In the result, the Appeal is partly-allbwed by enhancing 17 . the compensation amount awardcd by the Tribunal from Rs.43,6421 - to Rs.83,642l-. Except the said finding' the findings arrived by the Tribunal with regard to rate of interest and liability shall remain undisturbed There shall be no order as to costs.

18. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any' shall stand closed Sd/. K AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Court Record) Judge (Fast Track Court), Mahabubnagar (lf any Lower te [OPUC] One CC to SRl. J SANDHYA RANI, Advoca Y. KISHORE BABU , Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl, Two CD CoPies To 2 3 4 PR HIGH COURT DATED: 1910212025 , JUDGMENT MACMA.No.820 ot 2014 /a.' t:.'j*' HE sr4 16: 02 hir 2025 zA. o€spa;crt gO * \, PARTLY ALLOWED 7 /-,/ 1_/ 5 [ 3253 ]