Pilli Savitha v. 1. \llirz Sadiq Baig S/o. Mirza Noor Baig

This appeal has been preferred by the appellant_ claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated 18.09.2019 in M.V.O.p.No.735 of 2016, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_(VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short, .the TribunalJ, whereunder and whereby the Tribunal partly allowed the O.P. granting compensation of Rs. 1,Si,3OO/_ with interest @7.5% interest.

2. Heard Sri p.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2_Insurance Company. None appears for respondent No. l.

3. .For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the TribunaI. -/ 2 NNR.J Macma 15 2020

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 11.11.2016 at about 1:3O PM, the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle, which was driven by one Sainath, and when they reached on the outskirts of Pothangal Village, in the meanwhile a Car bearing No'AP- O1-TV-02 11 came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle' As a result of which, the claimant fell down and the front wheel of Car ran over her' Due to which' the claimant sustained fracture to her both tegs, both knees' injuries on head' chestandotherpartsofthebody.Immediately,afterthe accident, the claimant was shifted to RR Life Line Hospital' Nizamabad, where she underwent operation twice and steel rods were inserted and she incurred an amount of Rs.3,OO,0OO/- towards medical expenditure ' She further submitted that she was hale and healthy prior to the accidentandearninganamountofRs.20,o0o/_permonth by doing agricuiturb apd labour work' After the accident' she is unable to move from the bed' carrnot walk and attend her regular duties She also sustained 1OO7o permanent disability due to the said accident' She further 3 NNR.J Macmi li 2020 stated that. the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Car belonging to the respondent No.l, which was insured with respondent No.2 and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to her.

5. Respondent No. 1 filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all the averments made in the claim petition including the malner of the accident, age, avocation, incurring of medical expenses etc. He further stated that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and respondent No.l is having valid driving licence at the time of accident and hence, he prays to clismiss the claimant petition against him.

6. .Respondent No,2 also filed written statement before the Tribunar denying an the averments made in the claim petition including the manner of the accrdent, age, avocation e.rning capacity, negligence on the part of the driver of the crime car. He further stated that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the claim made by the claimant is l-' 4 NNR,J Macma 15 2020 excessive and exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the ! petition against him.

7. Before the Tribunal, claimant herself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A. 1 to A-12. P-W-1 also examined the Doctor as P.W.2 who treated him at R.R. Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad- On behalf of respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, except marked Ex.B'1-copy of insurance policy.

8. Admittedly there is no dispute regarding the accident and the involvement of the vehicle i.e., Car bearing No.AP-O1-TV-O2 11 in the said accident, belonging to respondent No.l, which was insured with respondent No.2-insurance company. It is also not in dispute that the said accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of said Car. The only grievance of the that the appellant-clamant before this Court is compensation, which was awarded by the Tribunal is meagre and the Tribunal ought to have awarded the amount claimed by the claimant in the claim petition. g. Having heard Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellarrt-claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva 5 NNR-J Macma 15 2020 Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2_ Insurance Company, the point which arose for consideration before this Court is "The point that q.rises for consid eroltion in this appeal is whether the appeflant_claimo,nt is entitled for enhancement of compensation or not?b lO. After going into the entire material placed on record and after hearing parties concerned, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of crime vehicle and accordingly, respondent . Nos. 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellarrt_ claimalt. Being aggrieved by the award ald unsatisfied with the compensation awarded, the appellant_claimant preferred this appeal.

11. P.W.1 in her evidence deposed that immediately alter the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizambad and from there, she was shifted to R.R. Life Line Hospital, Nizamabad, where she underwent operation twice and steel rods were inserted, for which she incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,O00/_ towards medical expenditure. l 6 NNR.J Macma 15 2020 She further deposed that prior to the accident she was earning an alnount of Rs.2O,OOO l- per month by doing agriculture and labour work. Due to the accident she sustained 1OO% permanent disability and she is unable to move from the bed, ca-nnot walk and attend her regular duties. Ex.A.3 is the medical certihcate and Ex'A'4 is the discharge summary, which shows that on L2'll'2016 the claimant underwent operation on 15' 1 1 '2O 16 and discharged on 28.11.2018. Ex'A'5, is the medical record of physiotherapy and Ex'A.6 is the hospital bilt for Rs.49,800/- issued by R.R. Lifeline Hospital, which show that the claimant admitted in the hospital and discharged from the said hosPital. L2. To prove the case of the claimant, she also examined' P.W.2-Dr.K.Ramestr, working as orthopaedic Surgeon in R.R. Lifeline Hospital, Nizamabad' He deposed that on 12.ll.2016 the claimalt came to his hospital and on examination he found the following injuries 1) Swelling and deformity left knee corresponding x ray shows communited fracture left patella, 2) Swelling and deformity right knee corresponding X ray shows communited fracture 7 NNR,J Macma Ia 2020 right patella. He deposed that the above two injuries are grievous in nature and he conducted surgery to the claimant on 15. ll,2016 and patella was removed in lelt knee. Open reduction internal fixation with patella K wires intention band wiring was done in right patell. The claimant was discharged on 20. 11.2016 with al advice of six weeks bed rest with medication. Exs.A. 12 and A. 13 w'ere issued by their hospita_I. The record further revealed that the above two injuries are grievous in nature and he doctors conducted surgery on 1 5. 1 I.2OL6 and patella was removed in left knee. Open reduction internal fixation with patella K rvires intention bald wiring was done in right patella. The patient was discharged on 20. lI.2016 with an advice of six weeks bed rest with medication. He further deposed that in the event of removal of implalt, the claimalt required Rs.20,000/ _ towards expenditure for surgery. llx.Alo is photographs showing the injuries sustained try the claimant. A perusal of Ex.B.l ald Ex.A. I 1 show that the insurarce policy issued in the name of respondent No.1, owner of crime car and it is valid from 8 NNR,J Macma 15 2020

30.01.2016 to mid night of 29.01.2017 and the accident t has occurred on 11.11.2016.

13. Prior to the accident, the claimant is working as an agriculturist and labour ald used to earn an amount of Rs.2O,O00/- per month. She is also having Ac-O-2 1 guntas of land in her name ald in prove of the same she filed Ex.A.9 pattadar passbook. Due to the injuries, she is not unable to work. The Tribunal has taken earnings of the claimant @ Rs.5,000/- per month and in view of injuries, she must have taken two months bed rest and awarded an amount of Rs. 1O,0OO/- towards loss of earnings' Admittedly, she is a labour and owning Ac.O-2 1 guntas of agricultural land. Considering the nature of the occupation of the claimant, the notional income which is taken by the Tribunal cannot be hnd fault. But, the Tribuna'l has taken two months bed rest and gralted an amount of Rs.1O,OOO/- which appears to be meagre for the reason that admittedly the appellant sustained injuries to both knees ald legs ald as such it cannot be expected that the appellalt would have recovered within two months' Therefore, considering the ground realities and also taking 9 NNR.J Macma 15 1020 into consideration the nature of accident, this Court opines that the claimalt might have suffered not onlv for six months she might have also taken treatment for six months. Hence, taking said aspect into consideration, this Court granted srx months as bed rest to the ctaimant and accordingly awarded arr arnount of Rs.30,0OO/-( Rs.5,0OO x 6) towards loss of earnings. L4. Coming to transportation, as seen from the record, the appellant is a labourer and residing in Bardipur Village, Nizamabad District and she has to take treatment in Lifeline Hospital at Nizamabad. Obviously considering the nature ol injuries received by her, she would have engaged any transport vehicle and it may be an Auto or a Car, for u.Lrich she would have incurred some income. The Tribunal zrwarded an arnount of Rs.4,000/- towards tralsportat ion charges and Rs.3,OOO/_ towards extra nourishment, in view of this Court, which needs interferencr: b1, this Court. This Court considering the ground realities, awarding an anount of Rs. 10,000/_ towards transportation charges and amount of Rs. 10,000/_ towards extra nourishment. ./ \ l0 NNR.J Macma 15 2020

15. Coming to the aspect of medical expenses' as there is no grievance regarding the medical expenses granted by the Tribunal, this Court is the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly granted medical expenses, which needs no interference by this Court. Coming to aspect of pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded art amount of Rs.30,00O/- towards pain and suffering' According to P.W.2, the appellant sustained two grievous injuries. Taking the said evidence into consideration, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant-claimant would be entitled to an additiona,l amount of Rs.3O,OOO/- towards pain ald suffering i.e., total amount comes to Rs'6O,OOO/- sl. No 1 2 a 4 5 6 Name of Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court Rs. Rs I,os earnlngs Transportation charges Extra nourishment Medical expenses Pain and suffering Medical bills under Ex.A.8 10,ooo 4,OOO 3,000 49,800 30,ooo 54,500 20,ooo 6,000 7,OOO 30,000 t1 NNR,J MacnB 15 2020 Lr TOTAL 1,51,3OO-O I 63,OOO-OO

16. ln the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed-in-part by enhancing the compensation amount avvarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,51,300/- to Rs.2,14,3OO/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5ok p.a. The respondents shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months (minus already deposited amount) from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is permitted to withdrau, the same along vvith interest. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SDI N SRIHARI, UTY REGISTRAR. ECTION OFFICER To, 1 2 The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll aiiii.nuL Dititi.t Jrdg" at Nizamabad' One CC to SRI P RADHIVE REDDY' Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRl. V SAIUBASIVA RAO'Advocate [OPUC] 3 4. Two CD CoPies chs \ct- 1 15 HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 (( i L :,-,. {i:j I ,. "|+ l-, ./.;' t ..,: JUDGMENT MACMA.No.15 of 2020 MACMA IS PARTY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS 6"^(tb XtF\' I [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR AGCID ENT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEAL NO: 15 OF 2020 Between: Pilli Savitha, W/o. Pilli Rajaiah, aged 32 years, occ. Agriculture cum labour, nyo. ArrJipw Village, now Residlng at H. No. 6-23-856, Gurbabadi Road' Dubba, Nizamabad District ,..APPELLANT AND 1 2 I\/irz Sadio Baiq S/o. Mirza Noor Baig, aged 43 years, Occ Business cum o** oi cff b"earing No. AP-01-TV-b21 1 , R/o. H. No. l-1 1-75' Phulong, Nizamabad. TheunitedlndialnsuranceCompanyLtd,Repbyits,Divisionall/anager' oli,iso"irbtti"e, Godown Road, Nilamabad. (Vide it9 Policv bearing No' oso7oojrrspr13000013, valid from 30.0'l .2016 to29-o1 .2017\ ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and Decree made in M.V.O.P. No 735 0f 2016 0n the file of the court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal - cum - Vlll Additional District Judge at Nizamabad. oRDER:ThisAppealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsof ,pplrf, the Judgment and D6cree of the Court below and the material papers in tne VVOp and Jpon hearing the arguments of Sri P Radhive Reddy Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri V Sambasiva Rao Advocate for the Respondent' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1

2. J. 4 5 6 That the IVACI\,4A be and. herby is allowing party by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunar form Rs 1,5.1 ,300/- io Rs 2,14,300t- That the enhanced amount shall carry interest al7.So/o per annum; That the respondent shall deposit the said ,rnorni within a period of two months (minus already deposited amount) from the date of receipt oi a.opy of this order; That on such deposit, the appellant claimant is permitted to withdraw the same along with interest. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunar shalr stands confirmed in all other respects; and That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. To, //TRUE COPY// dl-ru sRrueRr, DEPUry REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER 1 The Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal_cum_ Vlll Additional District Judge at NizamaUaO. Two CD Copies 2 chs 1cy HIGH COURT DATED: 1710412025 DECREE MACMA.No.15 of 2020 MACMA IS PARTY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. ,r*d* &-6'