The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. K HARIMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. SHEETAL KUMAR RAVULA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUK.a ARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1O39 of 2o23 .JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned <:t unsel for tl.e appellant/claimant and Sri R. Sheetal Kumar, lez rned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Penr ied the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appe lant/claimant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned lv otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xxvl Additional Chief Judge, ( ity Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the TribunalJ in M'V.O.P.lI t-426 of 2014, dated 17.O1.2023.

3. The claim petition filed under Section 166 of l/ compensation of Rs.4,OO,O00/- with interest at 13 .V.Act seeking /o per annUm from the respondents jointly and severally, was a lowed in part granting total compensation of Rs.64,632/- with irl .erest at 7.5%o per annum.

4. The claim petition was filed due to the injuri,: r sustained by the claimant in a road traffic accident that occurrec tn 22.O8.2OL3 at7.3O am., when the claimant and her husband rr :re going from their workplace. On that day, when they reached JM circle and stopped the motorcycle on the road side, the couplt: have thrown a E z waste packet ald were coming back to motorcycle by crossing the road. At that time, one School bus bearing No'AP-23-Y-3869 coming with high speed driven in rash and negligent toward Hi Tech City dashed the claimant causing fracture of right temporal bone, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body'

5. The claimant got examined as PWI and got marked Exs'Al to A8. Respondent No.2 got examined RWl and got marked Exs'Bl to

6. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence' the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.64,632/- witl.r interest at

7.5o/operannum.TheTribunalfoistedtheliabilityonlyon respondent No.1 and exonerated respondent No'2' However' respondent No.2 was directed to pay the compensation at first instance and to recover the same from respondent No'1' Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation aw'arded, the present appeal is preferred. In grounds of appeal, the claimant contended that she was 7. awarded meager amount of Rs.64,632/- by failing to consider her monthly income at Rs.8,OOO/-. The Tribunal did not consider any amount towards loss of earnings and tou'ards loss of clothing and articles. The claimant sought Rs. t,OO,OOO/- towards loss of 3 arnenities, social status, shock and mental agony €inc' said amount was not considered. No amount was granted towar I s continuing permanent disability though Rs. 1,60,000/- was claim:1'

8. During arguments in appeal, the learned cot nsel for the claimant argued that there is failure to conside^ payment of compensation under all the relevant heads and theref rre' a meager compensation is awarded. It is argued that the cla 'mant was a canteen worker and she has sustained disability du': to the injury but said aspect has not been taken into consi leration and therefore, prayed that just and fair comPensation be a varded' g. The first and foremost ground taken to ( impugned order is that the avocation of the claimant ,*,orker is not taken into consideration' The Trilr consider the said aspect as no documentary evid€l proof thereof. However, a perusal of the FIR/Ex'A1 s hallenge the as a Canteen rna,l did not ce is hled in rovgs that the claimant was working at the canteen of Sujana Con ;truction. The same is reflected in the charge sheet/Ex'A2 also registered on the same day of the accident and tl The FIR was erefore, there need not be any suspicion about the avocation of the claimant as a canteen worker. The only aspect to be considered s quantum of income of claimant as a canteen worker, that too in In the absence of documentary evidence, when th: he year 20 14. income of an 4 t unskilled labourer as per Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliancet is taken at Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/_, as a canteen worker, the claimant,s income can be taken at Rs.6,000/ per month and an amount of Rs.36,O00/- is awarded towards loss of income for a period of slx months. Further, Rs.1,OOO/ is awarded towards damages of clothing.

10. No evidence is adduced to prove that the claimant is suffering with headache, giddiness, loss of memory, concentration, sleep and emotional imbalance, etc. The medical bills under Bx.A7 are showing that the claimant had spent Rs.a,632l- towards medicines and the sarne was awarded by the Tribunal. Though nature of injuries is not clear from Ex.A3r/Medico legal certificate, the Tribunal awarded Rs.50,OOO/ taking into account that the claimant must have experienced pain and suffering due to the injuries. Further, the Tribunal awarded sum of Rs. l O,O00/ - towards extra nourishment and transportation and said amount can be increased to Rs.20,0OO/-. 1 1. .The claimant sought compensation towards permanent disability but the same cannot be awarded in the absence of oral and documentary evidence. None is examined to prove the permanent disabiiity if any sustained by the claimant. Likewise, no '{zorr) r: scc z:o 5 disability certificate is filed. Therefore, no compensal on is arx'arded on said count. Lastly, in the absence of any evide -rce about the nature of injuries sustained, loss of amenitjt s carnot be ascertained ald therefore, no cornpensation is aw lrded on said count. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.1,1- .,6321-.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly r llolr,ed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunai is hereby <: Lhanced from Rs.64,6321- to Rs.1,Il,632l , which shall carry inter 'st at 9oh per annum on the enhanced compensation from the dal.e rf petition till the date of realization. The Respondent No.2 / Insllra ICe Compaly shali pay the compensation in the first instance with n a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgnr :nt and later recover the same from the respondent No. 1. Upon i Lrch payment made, the claim petitioner is entitled to withdraw the,ntire arnount without furnishing any security. There shall be rL , order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if an5,, pending in thi ; appeal, shall stald closed. There shall be no order as to costs. \ SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL EI PUry REGISTRAR .' :1- //TRUE COPY// JECTION OFFICER To,

1. The XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderalr rd. 2. One CC to SRl. K. HARIMOHAN REDDY, Advocate [Ot, JC] -5ry'=Ta-* - -=Yr:=-ir:i,-_FYT_ =l:ryI.-lTffi*El J I

3. One CC to SRl. SHEETAL KUMAR RAVULA, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL (*- HIGH COURT DATED:05/0812025 l \ JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1039 of 2023 I (, \l I $!?? 61 * . ?F-qi=6lC PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COST!; (A- r( ) @ rN rHE HIGH couRr FSgrrJliBlfE oF TELANGANA t34421 TUESDNY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND rwer.rrV rrVE' PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMTJUSTICE RENUKA YARA IDENT clvtL MISCE LLANE OUS AP PEAL NO: 1 039 0F m23 R ACC MOTO Between: R;#'i3[[',i;['J;#3f#il3;n*ffi fl ,r.,:-f ffi -3ffi ,f; :tf:x*er,presen,yni,, AND ...APPELLANT 1 2 hi?i8J,t[#fl n"Flii*??;i"&:lBi.[T;3J3r*eddyBachupa,,yVi,,, l-'l3i,i,T:'Sl;i,3:3:l?:l?,'-'J:fiffii,lri5; #E3;llf;hyi!?gS:,.osman p,aza, 3lli" I"r1,r' r?1.';*r?.1 *i;;;; # u.d6lL1 l Jewe r Ma,, Road N o 2, Appeal fired under section 173 0f M.V.Act, against order and Decree dated 17- 01- 2023 passed in op No 426 0f 20140n the fire of court of the XXV, Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. ...RESPONDENTS This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appear' the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sRr HAR' MOHAN REDD', Advocate for the Appelrant and none appeared fror the Respondent No.1 and sRr SHEETAL KUMAR RAVULA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: ,l l,Llj:" Motor Accident Civit Misceilaneus Appeat be and is hereby parfly

2. That the compensatl0n -ayvglded by ttre Tribunar be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.64,632t_ to Rs. 1, 1 i ,632J_, iliJh sffi ;"rry inrerest at g% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of pet :ion till the date of realization

3. That the Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company be anrl is hereby shall pay the compensation in the first instance within a period o{ wo months from the date of receipt of this iudgment and later recover he same from the respondent No.1.

4. That the Claim Petitioner upon such payment ma le by Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itfrue Copyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL E,I PUTYREGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To

1. The XXVI Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabi d. 2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL 0 A HIGH COURT DATED:05/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.1039 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COS']- ; ( Ir e) t)'