Ch. Rajeshwar v. 1. Mekalolu Yadaiah S/o M.Ushanna Aged Major Occ. owner cum

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr rmstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to grant to STAY of all further proceedings pursuant to the Order and Decree dt.3o.12.2o22 in O. P. No. 1916 of 2016 on the file of MACT- Cum ll Addl. Chief Judge C.C.C. at Hyderabad, including its executron pending disposal of the appeal Order. Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU Counsel for the Respondent No.'l : SRl. K HARIMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT r' THT] HONOURABLE SMT..IUS-TI(]E, RE,NI KA YARA 1 M.A.C.M.A.Nos.l123 and 1253 of 2( . .l CONIMON JUDGMI-NT: lleard Sri K. Hari Mohan llcddl . lcarrrcd couusc irr the lppcllant iu MACMA No.lll-l of 1023 and respondcnt No.l in N,4 ('N4,\ No. ll53 of 20ll and Sri Sornanchi Venkatcswallu. lcarncd counseI i,r tlrc apPcllanL in MAC'MA \o.ll53 ol'1023 and lespondcnt No.f irr N,l ('i1I,\ No. lll.l oi' 201-l Pcrused thc entire record

2. For the sake of conveniencc, the partrcs arc rc i rccl lrs thcr u,crc arrar ed in tlte claim petition.

3. The MACMA No.ll23 of 2023 is llled ll lrc clainrurrr arrd MACMA No. 1253 ol 2023 is frled by the lnsurancc ( r rnpany. ag.er.icvcd by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accickrr I ('laiuls 'l r.ibunat- cum-lI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Corr.] I Ivdcralracl, M.V.O.P.No. I9l6 of 2016, dated 30.12.2022. I'he InsL .ancc conrpany is questioning the quanturn of compensation awarded w,lt e ttre clainrant is seeking enhancemetlt of compensation.

4. The claim pctition was filed on account ol rhe ir j rrics sustairrcd b1, the claimant in an accident that occurred on I 1.09.20 l4 ir I .30 pnr.. when 2 he was travelling on a mororc,vcle bearing No.AP-09-C]V- 1216 from KPI IB to JSB Honda show room. when the motorcycle reached Metro, rvhile taking 'U' tum, one goods vehicle bcaring No.AP-28-TB-7657 came in rash and negligent rlanner atrd dashcd the claimallt's tnotorcycle fiorn backside causing his fall, resulting in crush inlury to right hand' lracture tcr right wrist, fractures of 2, i. 4 and 5 fingers. abdorninal injtrry, deep cut injury to left knee, head injury and other blunt injuries all ovet the bod-v. [n view of the injuries sustaitled, thc clairn petition is flled seeking compensation otRs.35,00,000/- $'ith intercsr at l8% pcr anntrm fiom the respondents jointly and severally'.

5. The claimant got examinecl Pl to 4 and exhibitcd Exs Al to Al0' Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company did not exatnine any witness but got rnarked Ex.B I /True copy of policy. tJpor.r considering the evidence adduced, the Tribunal arvarded compensation ol Rs'27,00,700/- with interest at 6Yo per annum. Aggrieved by thc samc, thc claimant as well as Insurance company preferred appeals.

6. The lnsurance Company in grounds of appeal alleged that the 'lribunal erred in taking the incomc of the clairnant at Rs.20,0001 per month in the absence of proof ol incotne Fur-ther, it is alleged that the J disabiliry perccntage is taken at 600/o rvhen there is a rnp of six ycars bet$eeu date of accident and the disability certificatc takt L The disability ccrtillcate is rvith respect to onc limb but not total bodl rnd the clairriant can rrotk as a Marketing Manager. Awarding of Rs.1,50.()( ()/- torvalds p:rin and sLrlt-e|ing acco|ding to the Insurance Cor-npany is otr t I : higher sirie and thercfirre. pra.ved that thc impugned award bc set aside.

7. The clairnant sought enhancement of compensati() l alleging that the Tribunal has erroneousl]' considered his disability at 50',t, that the nrcdical bills arc l'iled fbr Rs.i,19,384/- but Rs.2,45,700/- o: r glanterl. l he rnarriage prospects of the claimant have decreased due trr inj uries and said aspect \\, as not considered by the I'ribunal. Further, loss, 1' anrenities. loss of soc'ial status attd mental agony are not considered. I-rr tly, the Tribunal awarded interest at 60/o per annum which ought to h: 'e been 9(% per

8. 'Ihe claimant is allegedly a Marketing Manage' \\'ith incomc of Rs.30.0001 per month No document is filed in pro'r'of incotne nor avocation. Ex.A l 0 is the bank statement which shows int r me varying liom Rs.500l to Rs.49,107/-.'fhe Tribunal considering the rrriation has taken the aggrcgate income at Rs.20,000/- per month for a 2 I iear old hoy that .+ too for tl-re year 2016. 'l'hcrefbre, tl-ris Couft does not see any reason to interfere with said finding as the notiottal incor.ne for all practical purposes tbt an inexperic'nced person is cotlsidet'ed on hi.lher side. that too ilr abscncc ol convincing evidencc abor-rt thc clairrant lrc-ing a Marketing Manager

9. l'hc Tribunal has taken the functional disabilitl'at 50ozi, on tl're basis evidencc of PW2/doctor who deposcd that the clainrant has supirration- pronation fixed wrist joint, restricted MP.ioint lnoverllents ot'lingcrs ar-rd thumb and IP.ioints, there is rveak grip strcngth and pinching capacity. Further, the clairnant cannot carry any weight with right hand and canrlot feed himsetf or hold gtass tike a norlnal person and callnot drivc a vehicle Though the petrnanent disability is at 60 to 65%0, thc lirnctional disability is considered at 50%o as claimant's work as Marketirrg Manager does t.to1 require lifting heavy weights or holding any objects. Howcver, it cannot be denied that the claimant would face physical inconvenicucc in pcrfbnnirrg his job as Manager as there is inabitity to drive a vchicle. For a Marketing person, mobility is important. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the disability at 50Yo is considered to be appropriate. Ilori cver, while calculating the Ioss of earnings due to disability, the future prospects at -) .10%o werc not considcrcd. 'l'hus, by considcring the lirt re prospccts at l -l0oZ. thc claimant is entitlc'd to loss of eamings at Rs.f 0 , 1,000i'- (r\nnual rncomc Its.10.000 r I2-1.,10.000/-, Future prospccts 40"2,, vlultiplicr' 'l8'. disahilitl -509i,)

10. l hc claimant sustiiincd three ll'acture injuries. I Ir, r'ctbrc. grant ol- I{s.7-t.(XX)/- turvards h'acture injuries, Rs.1,50,0001 to rards pain and suflering. Its-50,000- toualds extra nourishment and lts. (t.000/- toi.vards transport and attendarrt charges is appropliate. 'l'he biltinl. lanagcr ol'Icon hospital as PW3 dcposcd that final bill of Rs. 1,00,7001 IS paid bv the claimant. Fufther. the clairnant paid Rs.1,45,000/- tor.r lds final bill at Ren-rcdl hospital. Kukatpally. Thc rnedical expenses ar grarlted as pcr cvidencc given br |']W3,'billing in-charge of lcon hospital Kukatpallv and PW4/billing in-charse of Rernedy hospital, Kukatpally. I I erefbre, no lault can bc lirund with the medical expenses at Rs.2,45,700/- awarded by thc l'ribunal. -l'he inability to drive a vehicle shows a seri,r rs injury to leg. l'herelbre , Rs. 1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss c I arncnitics and Rs.1,00.000/- is arvarded towards loss of marriage prosJ), cts. ln tota[, the claimant is entitled to an arnount of Rs.37,64,700/- in lI respecLs. The 6 interest at 6%o per annum awarded by thc Tribunal on the compensation arvarded by it is enhanc ed to 7 .5oA ll. Corning to thc MACMA No. 1253 of 2023 tiled by thc Insttrance Company. the Insurance Company has challenged thc award questioning the income of the claimant taken at Rs.20,000/- per morrth in the absencc ol' ir]corne proof and taking the functional disability at 50%o. As discussed abovc. thc Tribunal has considered the bank stalerrent ma|kcd ttnder Ex.Al0 fbr arriYing at an average rnonthly incorne u'hich is contirrned by this Court and therefore, no interference is warranted on thc said count. F urther. though thc percentage of disabitity was said to be at 60 to 65%. the functional disability is laken at 50o/o as the mobilitl of the claimant is seriously affected and etI'ectively reducing his ability ,o *or" tiorn place to place as Marketing Manager. Lastly, awarding Rs. I,50'000/- towards pain and sulfering is questioned. When the claimant suffered rnultiple fractures and is going to suff-er with for partial and permanent disability at 60 to 65%o, granting Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suf-lbring is -iust and reasonable and the same is not interfered with. As such, the NIACMA filed by the Insurance company is liable to be dismissed. \ '\\\-- I I 1

12. [n thc rcsulL. the \'IACMA No.1 l23 ol 2023 flled ll the claimant is allowed by enhancing tlre comperlsation aurount grantetl by the Tlibunal tiorn Rs.l,7,00,700/- to lts.-17,64.700/-. The claimant is t' titlcd to interest at 7.50,:'o pcr annullt otr the cotnpetlsation amount of Rs.2 , ,00.7001. r'vhich granted b1' the Iribunal 1l'orn the date of lilirrl; of petition titl realization. Hou,cvet. tfue claimant is entitled to interest l t 99'o per at-ntrm on the cnhanccd cotnpcnsation fl'orn the date of petiticr till the date of realization. The resltondents shall deposit the compensatjt n amount within a period of two uronths ll orn tlre date of receipt of a copy this Judgment 't- On such deposit, claitnant is entitled to with<l aw the entire arnount, rvithout lirrr-rishing any security. The claimant sLr. ll pay the deficit Courl lee on the enhanced compensation. l'he MACMA 'lo. 1253 of 2023 is dismissed. There sl-rall be no order as to costs M iscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these a: leals, shall stand closed I D/- MOHD. ISMAIL DE PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ;ECTION OFFICER To, Citv Civil Court, Hvderabad,

1. The Chairman, tr/lotor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-ll Adc tional Chief Judge, 2 Onir CC to SRl. K'HARIMOHAN REDDY Advocate IOPLI( :] 3 One CC to SRl. SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU Advocr e [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. K HARIIVIOHAN REDDY Advocate [OPLlr )] 5. Two CD Copies GE\PSL I HIGH COURT DATED:12l09/2025 COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1123 OF 2023 AND MACMA.No. 1253 OF 2023 .,'ti! o =o J Ir iltt IW ) * Q,'- ..t ALLOWING THE MACMA No.1123 OF 2023 WITHOUT COS.T i AND DISMISSING THE MACMA No.1253 OF 2023 WITHOUT COS| S : iI I I g I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO: 1123 OF 2023 AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1253 OF 2023 M.A.C.M.A. No.1123 OF 2023 Between: Ch. Rajeshwar, Sio Linganna Aged 23 years Occ. Markettng Manage!, Presently nil, Presenily R/o. Hostel Ameerpet, Hyderabad. N/o Komanpally Vill, Armur lvlandal, Nizamabad District ...A,'ELLANT AND

1. Mekalolu Yadaiah, S/o M.Ushanna No 5-8-69,/29211, lndira Nagar, R.R.Dist. Aged Major Occ. owner cum driver R/o.H- Moosapet Village, Balanagar Mandal,

2. United lndia l.nsurance Co. Ltd., Rep by its Divisional Manager, T.P.Hub, presently at, 9th Floor, Ull Building, Baaheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 30.12.2022 passed in OP No 1916 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI K. HARI MOHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondents No.1 and SRI SOMANCHI VENKATESWARLU, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. M.A.C.M.A. No.1253 OF 2023 Between: M/s. United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd. ,, Represented by its Divis cnal Manager, T. P. Hub' Posnett Bhavan' Tilak Road' Abids Hyderabad ...Apper ; nuRespondent No.2 AND

1. Ch. Rajeshwar. S/o. Linganna, Aged about 23 years, Occ M: Presently nil. Presently R/o. Hostel Ameerpet, Hyderabad. I'1, Armur Mandal, Nizamabad Diskict 'keting Manager, r Kompally Village, ,,, , Resp: rdent No.1/Claimant

2. Mekalolu Yadaiah, Sio. M. Ushanna, Aged tvlajor, Occ Ownrr No. 5- 8- 69129211, lndira Nagar Moosapet Village, Balanag. Reddy District cum driver R/o. H Mandal, Ranga .. . Respondent I\ ( 2i Respondent No.1 Appeal filed under Section 173 of IV V.Act, against Orc ( r and Decree dated

30.12 2022 in O P No.1916 of 2016 on the file of MACT-Cur- I Addl. Chief Judge C.C.C. at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perui 19 the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and tf ( material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of SRI SOMANCHI /ENKATESWARLU, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI HARI IVOHAN REDDY, Ar /ocate appeared for Respondent No.1 and none appeared for Respondents No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal t!|. , 2023 be and is hereby allowed. 2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced fic \ G.M.A.No.1123 of n Rs.27,00.700/- to Rs.37,64,7001.

3. That the claimant be and is hereby entitled to interest at 7. compensation amount of Rs.27,00,700/-. rvhich was granted t I date of filing of pelirion till realization and rhat the claimant i % per annum on the the Tribunal from the entitled to interest at 90% per annum on thc cnianced compensation from the date cf retition till the date of realization.

4. That the respondents be and hereby shall deposit the comper : period of two months lrom the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthi, 5. That on such deposit by the respondents, the claimant is hereL rtion amount within a udgment. , entitled to rvithdraw the entire amount, without lumishing anl security. To

6. That the claimant be and hereby shall pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation.

7. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.1253 of 2023 be and is hereby dismissed.

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. lfirue Copyll SO/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (with records, if any)

2. Two CD Copres. GE\PSL HIGH COURT DATED:1 2/09/2025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.1123 OF 2023 AND MACMA.No. 1253 OF 2023 ALLOWNG THE MACMA No.l123 OF 2023 WITHOUT COSr' ; AND DISMISSING THE MACMA No.1253 OF 2023 WITHOUT COS. S +o