The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant:SRl R. ANURAG(SC FOR TSRTC) Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRl. KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA T EVI EADA M.A.C.M. A.NO .737 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal rs riicd b-r TSIlrc, ,gg.i.u".r b,. thc order and Decrt:e dated 18.02.2O2O in M.V.().p.No .94 ol. 2Ol 7 passed bv the chairman, Motor Accide.t claims Tribunar-cum_r / cditionar chief Judgc, City Civil Court, Sccunclerabad ([or short,,tl.t ,lribunal,,).

2. For convenicnce and claritt., thc parties hereur are referrcd to as thcy wcre arraved beforc thc,lribr-rn:rl. 3 'lhe cast' o[ thr: pcrrtiorrcr l-lcrbre the 'r'.btrr,r $/as thal on 06.10.2016 at abour lO:30 hours (.hilc thc petitiont r rvas going on his Pulsar motor bikc bearing No.r\p-29-AW -3126 r-r t, MGBS bus stand towards Kcesar:r antl lr,hcn hc rcachcd ncar L,I pal X Roads, one RTC bus bearing No.TS-O3 z o3og being driver-r rr. its driver in a rash and negligcnt manr)er ert a high spced, clash,: t the bike of thc pctiLioner, due to rvhiclt [hc pctitioner fc]l down i, ri sr_rstained bleeding i,juries. Immt:c,liatcl-v, hr: *.:rs shil.tccl to (i;r I lhi IJospital and he incurred hugc medical expenses ror hrs trr:i tment. The claimanr sought a compenszrtior_r oI Rs. l S,O0,0OO/,.

4. 'lhe respondent No.1/Driver o[ thc bus, filed cour lcr denying the averments of the petition rvith regard to the or:r rrrrence of accident, age, avocati.. a,d inr..nrc or- the pe titroncr IIe furthcr ) contcndcd that he is not at all rash and negligcnt and lhat even in case if this Court arvards any compensation, it has to bc paid tr-v respondent Nt>.2,"r'ho is his employcr. EID,] MACMA No.737 2021

5. The respondent No.2/RTC has filed counter denying the averments of Lhe pe Lition with regard to the occurrence of thc accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended thzrt the ot,ner and insurer of the motor bike are necessary parties to the proceedings and that the petition is bad for thcir non-joincle r.

6. Based or-r thc rival conrentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed thc follort,ing issues for trial: i) i, "Whether the pLeaded accid.ent acanned resulting in injuies to the uictim uiz. Sri Gundrati Naueen Goud, S/ o Si Vertkutesh Cnrr!:..*: to rash and negligent dnuing of the dnuer oJ A.p.S.R 7tC Bus beanng No.,qp1OS_Z_OSOSZ Whether the petitioner is entitted to anA compensation and tf so, at uhat qu1ntum? iit) 'lo tuhat reliej?"

7. To proi,e thcir casc, thc petitioners got examined pWs I to 4 and got marked Flxs.A I to A 13. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of I?s. I3,29,520/_. Aggrieved by the same. th(] present appeal is prcferred bv TSRTC. ----l / J ETD,J /IACMA No.737 2021

9. tleard thc submissions of Sri R. Anurag, le:r r rccl Standing Counsel for TSRTC and Sri Krishna Kishorc Kov,uri, learncd counseI for respondent No. 1

10. l-earned counsel for the appt:llant has subrr i tcd that the lribunal has assessed the income of thc pctitioner ro I e Rs.9,00O/- though there is no income proof tiled bv the p: itioner. The tribunal has sirnply believed the vcrsior-r ol t lte pctir r rrer and has awarcled huge :rmounts under various heacls. He lLr ther argued that the petitioner has not filed anl. agc proof .r rd that the disability certificate filecl b,y him is also not proved, bL r the tribunal has considered disabiiity to be 59%, and has crronc(,L sly :Lq,arded thc compensation. FIe therefore, prayed to rcdlrce thi. s rrnc.

11. Learned counsel for the rcspondents orr thc otllr- hancl hers submittr:d that thc petiti<tner has su[l'crccl itmpLlt.r]i ; I ol his lcg and Lhat considerrng the evidence ort record, thc L ibunal has rightly granted compensation and thcrcforc, he h: s prayed to uphold the order and decree passcd b_v thc trit)unal.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this CotLt t lrarnes the folloil,rng poin ts for deLermination 1 Whether the com;tensotion lJrantcd lty llte 7'r;l t 'tctl is Jusf and rectsonable,) 4 trD,j MACMA No 737 2021

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tibunat need interkrence?

3. To u-that rellef?

13. POINT NO.1: The contention of the appcllant's counsel is that the tribunal "l has granted huge amoultts of compensation without there being any proof. The case of the petitioncr is that he suffered grievous injuries in the accident and also his teg got amputaLed as a result of the accident. b) A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that it is thc MLC issued by thc Gandhi Hospital, Secundcrerbad, u,hcrein it is stated that thc petitioner sustained gricvous irrjury and that the petitioner is referred to TMT Plastic Surgery- Department. The discharge summary under Ex.A4 rcvcals that the petitioner was treated in NIMS, Punjagutta and rhat he u,as admitted on 09.1O.2016 and was discharged on 0 1 . 1 t .20 16. It further discloses that he was treated with debridement and extcrnal fixator and further he was treated for the fracture of metatarsals and also the treatment given to the fracture site on the lcft leg, the details of the treatment are mentioned in the discharge summary under Ex.A4, it explains the detailed procedure undertakcn by lhc plastic surgery department. It shows that there was " debridement + Externol Fixator under CSEA, Aseptic precautiott, Firtdirtgs: Sub fascial deglouing of entire I 5 ETD,] MACMA No 737 2021 L/ e leq entire .foot, exposed calcaneum, tendr.t .t tchilLis tenclon, medictl & lateral malleolus, Auulsed plantor fasr i ,. tui.th exposed l)lat ar Jbot nuscles. Discolouration of all toes. )rzbriclernent of cleuitalized tissue done ond aboue find.ings notecl, - sarticulation of all toes at metatarsophangeal joint streaming of nt(,.artorsa! heecls done." Lfe was advised u,.ith medication and revle\r. Sultscqucntly, his trea[ment at KIMS Hospital is revezrled fronr lx.A6, hc u,as admirted in the said hospital on 05.06.20 l7 ancl r irs clischarged on 10.06.2017. The complalnts noted in thc :aid rlischargc sllmnlarv rcvcal that he had eight months old in:,r rrsatc Ieft loot ',l,ith lrressurc sores on sole and thus a surgcr_r.on ),06.2017 rl,as performed, amputating his left leg, belou, kncc_ t,l.: 47 is a sct of dragnostic rcports of KIMS Flospital and the dicr ,r.cscription is disclosed from trx.A9. A set o[ medical bills arc lilc<r rnclcr trx.A1O. To prove his treatment, the petitioner got examinccl l) Vs 2 and 3. c) PW2lDr. R.V. Koteswar Rao who is a pltis,. Surgeon at NIMS Hospital, his evidence revcals that the petrl i,) lcr sustained lbur injuries i.e., 1) Near circumferential degtoutng o, sftlru ouer foot and ankle, 2)1, II, M, V toes are disclosure and. tlter(, ,uas rto bleed ort pin prick (dead), 3/ Sensatlons ouer the foot ( tsent. 4) An Abrasation of size 6 .r 3 cm present on meclial asp.? -. of left knee,, and that they have treated him for the said injr-rrir.: , ancl at the time ol healing stage, the entire foot was inscnsr,r r. Hc further 6 ETD,J MACMA No 737- 2021 deposed that their hospital has issued Exs A4, A5, A7 and A10 and that all the pharmacy bills of NIMS are issucd on their advise. d) PW3 is Orthopedic Senior Consultant at KIMS Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petilioncr u.as admitted on 05.06.2017 at their hospital and there was non healing ulcer over the sole with restricted ankle rate of motion and there was no sensation below the knee since eight months. Thrts, thcv have amputated the left leg below knee to prcvent the infcction spreacling to other parts of the body. Their hospital has issucd trx.A6, A8 and A9 and some medical bills in Ex.A 1O are issued bv their hospital. PW3 has admitted that the petitioncr can perform routine activities with support of knee prosthesis, otheru'isc r.t'ithout prosthesis, he needs another support to perform his routine activities. In the cross examination of PW2 and 3, nothing mate rial was elicited to discredit their evidence. e) Thus; it is elicited that petitioner suflered grievous inlurtes in the accident and has undergorlc inpatient treatment for about one month at NIMS Hospital and altcr cight months, due to the non-healing of the injury and lack of sensation below knee, his left leg u,as amputated below knee in KIMS Hospital. 7 IID,I M aN'A No.7l / 1021 f) PW4/Dr. Rajzrshekar who rs a Member ol . )rsrricr Mcclical Board, has issucd lix.A12 saying that the petitiont r susl.rined Sgyo disability to the k:[ Iou,er [imb. g) Thc original medical bills are hled to .l.rc cxtent of Rs. 1,83,307/ under Ex.A1O. The disability c: tificare r_rnder Dx.Al2, issuecl b1, District Medical Board reveals tha t the pctitior-rcr sustaincd 59"1, disability to the left lower limb, rl rc to thc post traLrmatic antputzltion which occurrcd as a result ol lre:rc-c:iclent. h) The conLenrion of the pelitioner is that hc. r : t.c.l i,0 $.or k as Supcrvisor in a Stone Crushing Company and lhar i : urscd to carn Rs. 15,0O0/- per month, but has not filed any doc,lenl to prove the same. Since, no certificate is submitted, t h -: rribunal has assessed the jncome of the petitioner to be Rs.9,()( )( / - pcr montl,r wl.rich appears ro be justified. i) It is clicitcd from the evidence ol pW3 that u,rr- rr-rt :rrrvborlr.,s support he cannot even do the routine activities o: Itc has to bc supportcd by a prosthesis and thus, he suffcrs o I r 16 I'rnci a job and support his family. Therefore, the said 59oz,r, I disat;ilitv is t-aken to be the lunctional disability and thus loss ,l'eanrings is also asscssed as 59% by the Tribunal which is jusl a - I rei,Lsonable. j) The tnbunal h:rs considered all thc componir rrs iuclucling thc pain and suffering, the medical expense s, ht, r r ancl ext ra_ I l -^1 ETD,] MACMA No 737 2021 nourishment, transportation, loss oI carnings and altendant charges and has arrived at a just compensarion of Rs. 13,29,520/-. Therefore, it is held that considcring the injuries suffcred by thc petitioner and the fact that his leg is amputated, the compensation awarded by the tribunal is found to bc.lust irnd reasonzrble. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, there is no need to interlerc with the order and decree passcd by t he 'l'ribunal and therefore, the same is upheld. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 1 5. Point No.3:- In the result, the appeal is dismissed upholding the Order and Decree dated 18.02.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 2OlT passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if an-v, ir-r this appeal, shalt sLand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/- L.VIJAYA LAXMI AssrsrANr RTSrRAR SECTIO]VOFFICER I Civil Court at Secunderabad.

1. The Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum- | Additionar chief Judge, city 2 One CC to SRl. R ANURAgJsqIgB^IqBr._c) .Advocate [opucl 3. One CC to SRt. KRTSHNA KTSHORE xOWuCr'Advocate [OCUCI, 4. Two CD Cooies GE/PSL To, I HIGH COURT DATED:18/0712025 \- o ''\-3 n- -\1- s : ( :. ?116 C) v) JUDGMENT MACMA.No.737 of 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS h \,\ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134441 FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 737 OF 2021 Between: T.S.R.T.C, Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. APPELLANT/RESPONDENT AND

1. Gundrati Naveen Goud, , S/o. Venkatesh Goud, Aged 30 years, Occ. Supervisor- cum- field worker, R/o. H. No. 1-'138, Keesara, R.R. Dist., presently R/OS- 55127 I A, Chikalaguda, Secunderabad. ... RespondenUPetitioner

2. K. Veeraiah, S/o. Chandraiah, Aged about Major, Occ. Driver of bus bearing No. TS 03 Z 0309, R/o. Kakkiralapally (V), Wardhannapet (M), Warangal Dist., Telangana -5063 1 3. (Respondents No.2 herein is not a necessary party in this Appeal as no relief is claimed against him') ...RE''.NDENT/RES'.NDENT Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.02.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum- | Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court, the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI R. ANURAG(SC FOR TSRTC), for the Appellant and SRI KRISHNA KISHORE KOWURI, Advocate for Respondent No.l This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus App€: I be and is hereby dismissed upholding the Order and Decree j rted 18.02.2020 in M V.O.P.No 94 of 2017 passed by the Chairman, l/ rtor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court iecunderabad.

2. Ihat there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itf rue Copyll I; )/. L.VIJAYA LAXMI ASS STANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairman. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-l Atl titional Chief Judge, City Civil Court. Secunderabad.

2. fwo CD Copies GE w HIGH COURT OATEO:.1810712025 DECREE MACMA.No.737 ol 2021 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS