The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI K. HARI MOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI D. NAGABHUSHANAM Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Ms. MADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I, "/*r THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKS YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1119 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/clainralt, Sri D. Nagabhushnam, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/owner-cum-driver of offending vehicle and Ms. M. Madhavi Priya, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Perused the record

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appcllant/ claimant aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum-Xl Addl. Chief Judge, Cit_v Civil Courts at Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal') 1n M.V.O.P.N<r.699 of 2017, dated 04.05.2023.

3. The appellant/claimant filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.24,O0,OOO/- with interest at I Btth per annum from the respondents jointly and severally on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road trafhc accident. On 04. 1 1.2016 at 9.30 am, the claimant was proceeding from Bachupally on his motorcycle bearing No.TS ll-ED 6944. When the motorcycle reached NSN convention center, Pragathi Nagar, a car bearing No.TSO7 EN 6348 driven in rash and negligent manner in high \- 2 speed dashed the motorcycle from backside resulting in accident ' and injuries to the claimant. The appellant sustained fracture of right tibia foot drop, lracture of right lower limb, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. He u,as treated in Peoples Hospital, Pragathi Nagar and then shifted to NIMS hospital for treatment, where he underwent surgeries. Subsequently, the claimant took treatment at Sai Specia,lty Clinics, Secunderabad. On account of losses sustained due to the injuries, the claimant Iiled the claim petltlon.

4. The claimant got examined PWs land 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A1 1. Respondent No.2 got marked Ex.B 1 Attested copy of Insurance policy.

5. Upon examining the oral and documentarlr evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation ol Rs.6,60 ,OOO / - with interest at

7.5o/o per annum directing the respondent Nos.l and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

6. In grounds of appea,l, the claimant contended that he is entitled to more than the claim amount of Rs.24,00,0OO/-, that his income is Rs.1B,00O/- per month but the Tribunal has erroneously considered Rs.1O,O00/- per month on1y. The loss of earnings, loss of amenities, loss of social status, loss of marital prospects are not l considered. Fr:rther, no compensation is awarded towards damage to clothing ancl attendant charges.

7. During arguments ln appeal, the learned counsel for the claimant emphasized that the Tribuna,l has taken meager amount as monthly income of the claimant and passed an erroneous award by failing to anvard compensation towards loss of arnenities, loss ol marriage prospects, attendant charges, etc. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just amount and the sanre need not be interfered with

8. Coming to the aspect of monthly income, tir,: Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.1O,OOO/- per month on the premise that tht: appellant was a person with no income as he was a student of Post Graduate Diploma in Management. The erstr.r,hile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in B. Ramulamma v. Venkatesb Bus Union, L,ingarajapuram, Bangalore and anotherr on considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had held that the minimum salary of a technical person, who IS holding a bachelor degree computers or t:lectronrcs or I mechanical, can be taken at Rs.12,O0O/- per month while the ' zoog (e) arr usa 4 persons who have completed M.Tech, MCA, MBA can be taken at' Rs. 15,OOO/- per month. In the instant case, the claimant was a Diploma holder in Post Graduate Management and the notional income is taken at Rs. 1O,OOO/- per month by the Tribunal. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the head of Permanent Disability.

9. As per Ex.A3 Medico legal record, the claimaat sustained one grievous injury. There is no challenge to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under the heads of transportation, extra nourishment and pain and suffering. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings.

10. In appeal, the challenge is mounted only to the failure of the Tribunal in granting compensation for loss of amenities, loss of marriage prospects and damage to clothing. Hence, this Court is awarding an amount of Rs.50,O0O/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.5O,OO0/- towards loss of marriage prospects and Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothing. i 1. PW2, the doctor who treated the claimant deposed that the appellant has taken 10 months time to recover ald therefore, there is a need for payment of attendant charges. The Tribunal has not awart.ed attendant charges. On this count, taking the period of rest Lw 5 as five months, an arnount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs 5,000 x s) awarded towards attendant charges. Thus, in all, the claimant is i entitlcd for Rs.7,87,OOO/-.

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed. 'l'he compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6,60,0O0/ to Rs.7,87,00O/-, ,"vhich shall carry interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition tili the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall deposit thr'amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to u,ithdraw the entire amount without furnishing the securltV. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in thrs appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPYII SD/ MOHD. ISMAIL D PUTY REGISTRAR / S ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum_Xl Addl. bnref Judge, City Courts at Hyderabad. C ivil 2 One CC to SRt K HART MOHAN REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRt D NAGABHUSHANAM, Advocate tOpUCl 4 One CC to MADHAVT pRtyA MANTENA, Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD Copies GE/gh Pnq- ! Y HIGH COURT DATED:15.07 .2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1119 of 2023 1 HESTA ')-' \) a') (_) ,. '.\i * 10 otl ?ffi 2 * s PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS @o$ 7\ro\>s IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD t 34431 TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRFSFNT THE HONOURABLE SMT" JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 11'19 OF 2023 Between: C. Vamshi Vardhan Goud, S/o. C. Vishnu Vardan Goud, Aged 23 years, Occ: PGDM Student, Presently Nil R/o. H,No.18-9-89, Chandrayan Gutta, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT AND I Ch Swamy Sreekanth S/o Ch Swamy, Aged: Major, Occ: Owner cum Driver of car R/o Plot 681/4, HMT Hills, Opp JNTU Kukatpally, Hyderabad-500078.

2. Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co Ltd Itep by its Gencral Manager,4th floor, North East plaza, Opp RTA Office Erramanjil X Roads, Hyderabad- 500082. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against the Order and Decree daled 15.07.2025 passed in O.P.No.1119 ot 2023 on the file of the court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at 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 SRI D. NAGABHUSHANAM, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and IVIADHAVI PRIYA MANTENA for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the lvlotor Accident Civil Miscellaneus be and is hereby partly allowed '---J-7 2 3 4 5 i"fr j;*,,[T::r#;,:ffi Tj,,:x,:ll:*ilJ..rffi ) ,J",:r"ffi ""1 That the Respondent Nos wi th i n a p.'.i I i rai' *"Ii J,# ir:'.:[.J;,:::"*lr; :il r::? ff [ l:: #T,, Jff':'h3l1ir,il fl I ;,T?.fl ;[";: l:"x?,ir" That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal_ hereb y e n tired to with d raw the ltTrue Copyl/ To 'l. The Motor Accident Clair courts at Hyderabad. ms Tribunal-cum-Xl Addl chief SD/ MOH D. ISMAIL TYR EGIS E TION OFFICER J udge, City Civit

2. Two CD Copies. GE Prtq ed. HIGH COURT DATED:15.07 .2!.025 DECREE MACMA.No.1119 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1o, S^t^, -9\tolzi &