The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cin; mstances stated in the affiddvit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m. \ be pleased to stay the execution of the decree and judgement dated 26.03.20i: passed in MVOp. No. 338 of 2016 on the file of l\ltotor Accidents claims 'f i runal-cum-principal District Judge, Nalgonda. Counsel for the Appellant: SRI V KRISHNA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SRI PASHAM KRISHNA Il :DDy Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2:-- The Court made the following: COMMON JUDGMENT w//Y -l THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.634 & 74O OF 2O2l COMMON JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.No.634 is filcd by thc claimant, wl'rile MACMA.No.74O of 2027 is filed by the lnsurancc Company, w,hich ilrise out of an Order and Decree dated 26.O3.2021 in M.V.O.P,No.338 of 20 16 passed by thc N{otor Accidcnr Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judgc, Nalgonda (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties hcrein are rcferred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Thc case of the claimants before the Tribunal is that on

31.O1.20 l6 at about 7:O0 p.m., the petitioner along u,ith labourers \\'ent to Kalavapally of Kompakorlv and rhat aftcr lo:rcling. thev wcrc returning from Kalavapally in order to go to Namathplly Village, and on the way the petitioner was driving the said tractor and trailer at a normal speed, and rvhen rhcy reactred 'l'hurkapuram cross roads of Bhongir town, one car beeLring No.AP 29-Q-9992 coming from Bhongir side towards Nalgonda driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligcnt manner, dashed a Qualis bearing No.AP-O9-L-8813 coming in opposite dircction and later the said car driver lost control of thc said car and dashcd the petitioners tractor trailer from behind, as a result of rvhich the said 2 ETO,] \'rc N4A No.643 710 2011 tractor trailer turned turtle, due to which the petitirr Ler and lzrbour lravelling in the said tractor, sustained grievot I injuries ancl fractures. Thus, hc was shifted to the Kakatiya F{o pital at Uppal and later on he u.as shilted to NIMS, Panjaguttci t nd underq'enr treatment ancl incurred huge medical expenses. Llc :herefore, fiied a petition seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,00O/-.

4. The respondent No.1 and 2 remained ex-parto

5. The respondent No.3 filed counter denyrr 1 the matcrierl avermcnts of thc pctition with regard lo the agc avocatiotr ancl income of ther petitioner and further denied the invc.r,emcnt of Car bcaring No.AP 29 Q-9992, it has also disputed the treaLment undenve nt tr.v the petitioner and his medical expen:;( s

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal ras framt)d thc follou,ing issues for consideration:- 1 2 Whellrcr the petitioner sustained gievous fract t e inJuies itl tlre road accident occurred on 31.01.2016 al about 70O p.nt.t near I'hurkapuram cross roads of NaIg t .da road of BllotLgir tolun outskirts due to rosh and negligz ',t dnuing o.f tlrc Car beaing No.AP-29-Q-9992? Wlether the petitioner is entitled to the comper,.: etiort? If so, fron wlich antd to tDhat amount?

3. 'l'o what relief & costs ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got exarr ined PW1 to 3 and trxs.A1 to A1O, Ci and C2 were marked. Cr behalf of thc respondents RWl was examined and Ex.R1 and R2 vere marked. 3 ETD,J MACMA No.643 740 2021

8. Bascd on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.4,84,640,/-. Aggrievecl by the said award, the claimanl has preferred M.A.C.M.A.No .634 of 202 I while the Insurar-rce Compan}, has filed M.A.C.M.A.No.740 of 2O2l .

9. Heard the submission of Sri C.M.Prakash, icarned counsel for thc appellants and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counscl lor respondcnt No.3 in MACMA.No.634 of 2021 and Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, Iearned counsel for respondent No.3 in MACMA.No.74O of 2021.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA.No.634 ctt 2O2l has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider all the documents tiled by the petitioner and that the petitioner sustaincd gricvous injuries, fracture to the left hand, left leg and right hip jornt and that the Tribunal failed to consider the said fact. Hc further argucd that the petitioner got permanently disablcd and the Tribunal failed to consider the said disability. Learned counsel tras lurther argued that the Tribunal has taken thc incomc of the pctitioner to be very low as Rs.8,OO0/ - and also that while :ru,arding the compensation for future prospects, thc l'ribunal has added only 25ok and also that it has awarded very lou, amount for medical bills. He therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. 4 ./\ \lANo.643 710 2011 E TD,] 1 1. Thc learr.red appellant counsel in MACMr\ ll .734 of 2021 appe aring for thc Insurance company has a r : led lhal t he Tribunal failed to consider the contributory neglie I )ce on pirrt of thc threc vehir:lcs :utrl has not lixcd the liability a!l nst tl.ro clrirrcr ancl ou,ncr o1 (lualis and tracfor trailer. Hc [urtr.. - argr-ted rhat, thor-rgh the c:ase is lilcd for seeking compensal r n for inrurics sustaincd br ther petitioner, the Tribunal tas awarrlcd cornpensation as if it is a death case. He lurther I gucd thzLt the Tril>unal has au'arclcd compensaLion for permi rent disabilil_v \\'ilhout any clocrrmcnta^ ltroof and that the respr,t lent No.1 u,as trczrted r-rnder Aarogvtr Sri Scheme and thus. r r qht r.rot h:rve incurred any ntcciic:r I expcnses, u,hile the Tribun r has arvarclecl exceSS amount tourat'ds mcdical exllenses.

12. Based on thc iLltovc rival conlentions, this C'r.trt framr:s lhe lollotving poir rs tor dcrr.nninarion: lliiu'tlrcr lhctt, r.s rrn.r/ rrz.s,lr ctnd rtegtigence oJ tht t riuer of Qttolis beunng No.AP 09-L 8813 in the occurr(\t( , of accideti ? IJ so, rL,hellcr arry liabliy ho.s to be ftred on i re otuner ctnd dnuer oj Quulis bcarfiq No.AP O9-L-881 3? V/ltetlLer tlte cootpt:nsatiort ewarded bg the Tnb,, tc.l i.s just (u1d reasortable? Wrcl|rcr the order attd decree of the Tibunqt te e I ang it LtL'rkrc-nce? 3 4

5. To rulrut relief? 5 ETD,I MACMA No.643 740 2021 i3. Point No.1: a) A perusal of Ex.A3/Charge Sheet reveals that the driver of the Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 is the accused person in rhis case. While the petitioner rvas returning along with labourers from Birongir, the accuscd driver has driven his car at a high specd in a rash and ncgligent manner and hit the eualis bearing No. Ap-09-L 88 I3 in an opposite direction and then he hit the tractor o[ the petitioner, as a resul[ of which the rractor turned turtle. b) [t is asserted by PW 1 that while he tas driving his tracror lrom Bhongir to Nalgonda, the car bearing No.Ap-29-e-9992 dr.iven by' its driver at a high spped has hit the eualis in the op1:osite direction and Lhen it has hit the tractor. The contents of the charge shcel also reveal tl.rc said fact and it is filed against thc accused drir.er oI thc Car bearing No.AP-29-e,9992 aftcr thorough ini,estigation by the Police. Hence, it is held that the accidcnt occurred due to the rash and negligence of the driver of car u,ho is rcsponclcnt No. I in the OP. Thus, the driver, owner and insurer of the said car bcaring No.AP-29-Q-9992 are held to be liable in this case and thc question of fixing liability on the owner and driver of Qualis bearing No.AP-09-L-8813 does not arise. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- 6 ETD,] i Ll,4A No.6j3 7,10 2021 a) Thc petitioner and othcrs u,cre shifted [o KrL zrtil'a Hospital at Uppal and latt:r on lte was shiftcd to NIMS, Pan. i Eiutta alt(l was aclnrittcd as in[)aLie nl rtn O8.02.2O 16 at-rd that lc undcr.u,ent sllrgcrv ol right. Upper Ult'ra, und s:rs dischargcd o.t t)9_02.20 l6 as per trx.A5. Subscqucntlr,, hc has tdkcn treatment r r otrtpaticnt for a long period oi time :tnd also underwent physiothi:: apy and lollo$/ up tre atment. b) A pcrusal of lix,A4/lnjury Certificate da- cl i1 1.01.2016 issucd by Goventrnent Ilospiral, Bhongrr rcveals tlt r thc petitioner sustained fracrlrrc to nght hand, zrbrasion on lr {. Icg ar-id ,vaist, thus sustarined onc gricvous injury ernd tu,o simpk' i L.1uries. Hc was adrnittcd in NIMS Hospital lbr tr,,,o days ar-rd ,*.zrs ,r.eat.ed for his fraclure of right Ulna. IJc has also lilcd thc outpatir r t re<:ord under Dx.A6, tl'rus rcr.,caling his Lrcatmcnt in Nizanr Iospital for a considerablc pcnocl of time as an outpatient. The or Loal_icnt r.ccord rcvcals that hc rook outpatient treatment frorn 13.02.2O 16 at Nizam Hospital till lle sas admitted as inpatient orr r g.O2.2016. c) He filecl fcu, bills issued b1. the NIMS Hospitr I to an extent of Rs.14,640/ Ilc lras also filecl rhe Ex.A9/Disrr I L r5r Certificate issued by the District Medical Board, his age is (l sclosed a s ,89, years in trx.A9 and his disability is assessed as I ,( 9/o 1o the right lore arm 1 ETD,] MACMA No.643 740 2021 d) The record reveals that the petitioner was admitted on 22.O2.2O16 and discharged on O1.03.2016. Thus, it reveais that he has sustaincd fracture injury and has also undergone inpatient treatmeltt. Cor-rsiderir-rg the evidence on record, it is held that an amount ol Rs.50,0O0 /- can be awarded towards pain and s uffe ring. e) The injured petitioner is stated to be the owner-cum-driver of tractor and trailer bcaring NAp_24_AA_4 105 and A?_24_AA_4106 and rhat hc usccl ro run the said tractor trailer for transporting goods in Bhongir Locality and thus, he used to earn Rs. 15,000/ per month prior ro thc accidenL. f) Ex.A8 is the Photo copy of his driving license and this was marked on perusal of the original driving license, by the Tribunat. Ex.AS rcvcals that he holds a valid driving license from O1.04.2013 Lo 23.12.2023 for driving tractor ancl trailer transport vehicle. For dri'ing non-transport vehicles, Ex.Ag is valid tili 23.12.2023 and lbr Lransport ve hicle Lhe validity is till 31.03.20 16. The date of accident is 31.O 1.2016. Therefore, it is heid that the petitioner \4,as I-rolcling a valid driving license to drive the tractor-trailer as on the d:rte of Lhe accident and his contention that he used to run the tractor-trailer for transportation of goods and other items in and around Bhongir appears to be true. 8 ETD,] l,l ,( /ANo.643 740 2021 g) Considering 1hc said fzrcts and cvidence adrlrr ed on rccord, lL is opined thirl he r-r-rust havc been earning aroun(l lts.8,OOO/- as assessed by thc Tribunal on zr reasonable h5,pothe :.i , h) It is bornc out lx rccorcl that he unclcru,er I rre:ltntcllt for almost one mr>nth :rs rr-r p:rticnt and he ,.r as rozrn i iq around t hc: irospitals for trnde rgoirrg furtlrer trcatnrent. I :refort:, on zr rcasonablc hypothesis, hc must havc takcn anoth,r' ,.l,o months to rcco\rer from thc ir-rjuries. Thcrefore, loss of earnir gs is au'arded lrrr fhree months i.e ., lts 8,0OO x 3 = '24,OOOl-. i) Thc pctitloncl Itas filcC ntcdical bills t, rrn cxtcrrt of Iis.15,000/- , in adcli(ion to it somc amount of expt r liture torvards transporL, extrzr nourishment and othcr incider-rtal ( I penses cilnnot bc ruled out. An adclitior-ral amount of Rs.30,C( t 7 is au,arded which is roul.rclcd up to Rs.50,000/- to,,vards adrl Ional cxpenses as rvell as medical expcnses. j) The principlcs laid dou,n in Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumarl, arc follou.ed u,it}-r regarcl to the asscssment for loss of carnitrgs l-t case of permancnt disability. The petitioncr has ileci Disability Ccrtificate undcr Ex.A8 sho\\,ing that he has : r-rstaincd 3801, tlisability to righI Ibrt:arm, wl'rich l-ras to be sczri:. I dou,n ro the u,hole body and then to the loss ol earning capacll \ Since, he is a driver, injury to right fore arm may rcsult in lour:r i tq his capacity r :o l 1to scc 3t: 9 ETO,J MACMA No.643 740 2021 to drive effectivelv in future. The learned appellant counsel has argued that due to the said injury, the petitioner is not able to drive thc vch icle and that hc [-ras lost his source of income as a driver of trac Lor- trailer- Considering the fact that he was a driver of the transport vehicle and that he rvas transporting goods on the tractor- trailc r, it is opincd that 30% of disability is scaled down to i5% to g.hoie body. Ho$,ever, he is a driver and he has got impairment in his hand u,hich would impair his driving skills. Hencc, 307o of loss ol earning capaciLy is taken into consideration. LIis monthlf income is asscssed as Rs.8,000/- per month. Adding 4Oa/,, flrturc prospects lr.ould given Rs.1 1,2O0/- per month (l?s.8,OOO + 3,200) which comes up to 1,34,400 (11,200 x 12) per annum. Then loss of fu tr-rre earnings would be Rs.6,04,800/ - (1,34,4O0 x 30/ 100 x multipUer '15') k) Therefore , the compcnsation Lo which the petitioner is cntitled is calculatcd as Rs-7,28,800/-, while the Tribunal has au'arded Rs.4,84,640/ . Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entillcd lor cnhancement of compensation. Hence, point No. 1 IS ansr,",ered accordingly.

74. Point No.2:- \ It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified r,r'ilh regard to the quanl"um of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to 7 ,28,8OO / - frorn d,,.2 i0 that of Rs.4,84,64O/- i.e., ar.vardcd by the Tribur-r r . Point No.2 is ETD,] i. 1 \iA No 6,13 710 )021 answered accrtrdingly.

15. Point No.3:- In tl-re re sr-rlt. MACMA.No_74O of 2O2\ filed ::. rhc I:tsurance Cornpany is clismisscd ancl MACMA.No.634 of 2( .I lilcd bv the clarrnant is itllou,ccl, rnodifving the Order ar-rr [)er:rr:c Catecl 26 03.2O2l in M.V.O.P.No.338 ol 2016 passerl )\. the Motor Ac('idcnt Claims Tribunal cum Principal District , t r lge, Naigcrtrla, i'nlrancinq thr-- r:ompcnsation from 1,a4,84O1- to -. !.8()O ar.ld thc cnlr:rnccd amoLlnt of cornpr:Dsa tior-r shall carrv intr . :rt (i 7.5,X, Iter annum lrom Lhc dertc of claim pctition till realizat.r r l{ou.cvcr, thc ir.lt('r'est for titc period ol dctay, il any, is forfeirt r l.lcspo:rck:nt No. I to 3 arc directcd to deposir the compensatt,, antounl \\.ith act:rued intercst u,ithin a period of two months i., rn thc clille of rec:cipt oI a copy of this judgment aftcr dcducting ri r rrmount if any alrcad5, dcpositcd. On such deposit, thc appcllarr. :ire cntitlec.l Lo u,ithdrat, thc saicl amount lr.ithout lurnishing ar.t. ,cLll-it_\., irs I)er thcrr respccti',,c shares as allotted bv the 'lnbunal. I r, costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in L r s apltr:al, shall stiu td closcd. //TRUE COPY// sD/- MOHD. tSMAtL t : $PUTY REGISTRAR I \ 1 SECTION CFFICER n To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal Dis r :l Judge at Nalgonda 2. One CC to Sri C.Mohan Prakash, Advocate IOPUCI 3 One CC to Sri V.Krishna Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri Pasham Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPU( ] 5 Two CD Copies -_ -NVBigh i' HIGH COURT DATED:29104J2425 (' O \-< )i!3, '\,, t 'ur.[ 2ln5 ) oEl;r:r-;, \i:=. z. 6)I. {- /j COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.Nos.634 &740 OF 2A21 Dismissing the MACMA No.740 ot 2O21 and Allowing MACMA No.634 OF 2021 x C> t I I 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MACMANo: 634OF 2021 Between: Yellamla Narsimha, S/o. Ramaswamy, aEed.38 Years, Occ- Tractor Owner- cum - Driver, Present Nil, R/o. Namathpally Village of Bhongir Mandal of Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Panagal locality of Nalgonda Town, Mandal and District. ...AppellanUClaimant AND '1. Aiakuntla Mahesh and 2 Others, S/o. Yadagiri, Aged.40 Years, Occ. Owner- cum- Driver, Car bearing No.AP-29-Q-9992 R/o. H.No. 1-129, Anjipuram Village of Bhongir Mandal of Nalgonda District. (Owner -cum-Driver of Car bearing No. AP-29-Q-9992 ). 2 Kurra Vigneshwar goud, S/o. Not known the Claimant, aged., Major, Occupaiion. Business, R/o. H.No.5-'l 00, Vaishnavi Nagar, Chowdariguda, Gatekeshar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District.

3. United India Insurance Company Limited, represented by its Divisional IVlanager, Divisional Office, R/o. Posnet Bhavan, f!ta! [9q!, Ko1i, Hyd-e^ra^bad (Polict No.0502023115 P107392351, valid from 0111012015 to 30/09/2016). ...ResPondents/ResPondents MACMA.No.740 OF 2021 Between: United lndia Insurance Co. Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office R/o Posnett Bhavan, Tilak Road, Koti, Hyderabad. Policy No. 0502023115P107392351 , valid from 01 ..10.2015 to 30.09.2016 ..Appellir rU Respondnet No.3 AND 1 Yellamla Narasimha and 2 others, S/o. Rama Swamy, /r ed 38 years, Occ Tractor owner-cum-d river. Present NlL. R/O Namathpal \ Village of Bhongiri IVlandal of Nalgonda District. Presently residing at Panal r! locality of Nalgonda town, Mandal and District. ...Resp : rdenUPetitioner

2. Alakuntla Mahesh, S/o Yadagiri, Aged 40 years, Occ Oil rer-cum-Driver car bearing No. AP-29-Q-9992, R/o H No. '1-129, Anajipurar village of Bhongiri, lt/andal of Nalgonda District.

3. Kurra Vigneshwar Goud, S/o No1 known to the claimant \ged Major, Occ Business, R/o H.No. 5-100, Vaishnavt Nagar, Chowdari ; lda, Ghatkesar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District Policy holder of the ca. rearing No. AP-29- Q-9992 ...Responder :s/Respondent No.1 Appeals filed Under Section 173 of lvlotor Vehicles Act. I decree in IM.V.O.P.No.33B of 20'16 dated.2610312021 on the i Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at gainst the Order and r of the Court of the \algonda These appeals coming on for hearing and upon per l appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court and the nri case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri C.lr4ohan Prakr Appellant in t\/ACtvlA.No 634 of 2021 and Sri V Krishna F e Respondent No.3,and none appeared for the respo IMACIT/A.No.634 0I 2021 and the I\/ACMA.No.740 0f 202' Decree of the Court and the material papers in the Appella r Advocate, in II/ACMA.No.740 of 2021 and Sri Pasham Krishn,l MACMA. No.74O of 2021 and none appeared for the Responder ;ing the grounds of terial papers in the ;h. Advocate for the o, Advocate for the rdent No- 1&2, in the judgment and t Sri V.Krishna Rao, Reddy, Advocate in tNoland2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the IMACMA.No.740 of 2021 filed by the lnsuran ,e Company be and hereby is dismissed.

2. fhat the MACMA.No.634 of 2021 tiled by the clairr rnt is be hereby is allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dirr :d 26.03.2021 in M.V.O.P-No.338 of 2016 passed by the IVIotor Accident ( :laims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Jude, Nalgonda enhancing the :ompensation from 4,84,8401- to 7,28,800 and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. 3. The Respondent No. 1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest with a period of tvvo months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. 4. That on such deposit, the appellants are entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the tribunal.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itf rue Copyll To SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGIST ---7 ON OFFICER

1. The Arlotor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge at Nalgonda 2. Two CD Copies. NVB HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.634 & 740 OF 2021 Dismissing the MACMA No.740 of 2021 and Allowing MACMA No.634 OF 2021 \