The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri P. Radhive Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HOIT'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RETUK.,C YARA M.A.C.DI.A.N o.346L of 20 L2 JIIDGMEITT: Heard Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned cc unsel for the appellant/ctaimant and Sri N.S.Bhaskara Rao, 1: rrned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company ir rd perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the app:llant/claimant aggrieved by the award passed by tJ:e learned l/[otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Addl. District Judge at 'Iizamabad (for short 'the TribunalJ in O.P.No. 1949 of 2OO2dated 1( .O8.20O7.

3. The claim petition was trled seeking crl npensation of Rs,6,OO,OO0 /- payable by the respondents jointll and severally consequent to the claimant suffering injuries in a road trallic accident which took place on 24.1O.2OO2 at 10.30 Jr: n. On that day, when the claimant along with another was trave.Ll ng in an auto rickshaw from Madhavanagar towards Nizama: ed side, near Pangra Boregam village sivar, a car bearing Registre tion No.AP 257 6834 came at high speed and dashed the auto, as a 'esult, the auto got damaged and the claimant sustained fracture of right thigh, left leg, skull, head and eye injury. 2

4. The claimant lead evidence by examining PWs I and 2 and got marked Exs.Al to A8 and Ex.Xl. Thd respondent \ , No.2/Insurance company got marked Ex.B l/Insurance policy copy.

5. Upon examining the oral and documentar5i evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.75,0OO/- with interest at

7.5o/o per annurn directing the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, tJ:e present appeal is preferred.

6. In grounds of appeal, the claimant contended that the oral evidence of the witnesses PWI and PW2 and the contents of exhibits are not considered as there was failure to take note of the grievous injury sustained by the claimant in addition to failure to consider that the claimant has taken treatnent as an in-patient for three weeks. The future treatment and future surgery for removal of implants has not been considered. F\:rttrer, the claimant had 4oolo disability but the sarne was not considered on the ground that there is no certif,rcate issued by the Medical Board. The claimant was a mechanic and an agriculturist but his income was not taken into consideration while granting loss of eamings and therefore, a meager amourlt of Rs.75,OOO/- with interest has been awarded.

7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the claimant reiterated the stand taken in grounds of appeal about the 3 failure of tlle Tribunal to consider the oral ar r documentary evidence in right perspective while considering tht: loss of income , and percentage of disability while computing comper sation.

8. To the contrary, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 would argue that the Tribunal has taken int r consideration ttre income in proper perspective as the accident ,,ccurred in the year 2OO2 and the monthly income is rightly taken a t Rs.3,OOO/- as a clerk but not mechanic. tt is argued tJlat the compensation awarded is just and proper. However, future prr spects may be awarded.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the occunt nce of accident and Uability of respondents to pay compensation. 'l re only dispute is with regard to the quantum of cornpensatior paid. As per evidence of the claimant as PW1, he sustained frar: ure of right leg ttrigh, left leg, head injury and skull fracture, eyes rre injured and eye sight is alfected. Further, there are other ir juries. In that regard, Ex.A3/lnjury certihcate shows that the clai nant sustained fracture of right femur apart from an abrasion on the right arm. Furttrer, Ex.A3 shows that the claimant weii admitted in Government Hospital, N2amabad on 24.1O.2OO2 md discharged on 11.11.2OO2 i.e. almost for about three weeks. Tl e oral evidence 4 of PW2/Dr. G. Jaya Prakash is that the claimant admitted in their Hospital on 01.12.2003 and discharged on 24.12.2003. He further \ ' deposed that the claimant suJfered fracture of right thigh and the same had non-union and that the claimant may have spent Rs.6O,OOO/- towards his treatment and needs another Rs.3O,OOO/- for removal of implants. In cross examination, it is elicited that PW2 performed second surgery and the frrst surgery was performed in the Government Hospital. Since there is one grievous injury, the claimant would be entitled to pa5rment of Rs.2Sr(XX)/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.lO,(Xrc/- bwards simple injuries and treatment. Further, the claimant would be entitled to pa5rment of Rs.S,(XX)/- each towa-rds extra nourishment and transportation. Further, the claimant would be entitled to paSrment of medical bills under Ex.AS at Rs.38,135/- instead of Rs.3O,OOO/- awarded by the Tribunal.

10. As per the evidence of PWl, he was working as a mechanic in addition to agricultural work and had Rs.1S,OOO/- per month income. As per charge sheet/Ex.A2, the claimant was a clerk in Maheshwari Electrical shop. A clerk in an electrical shop in the year 2OO2 might have been paid Rs.S,OOO/- per month. It might have taken at least six months' time period for healing of the right femur to resume work as a clerk. Therefore, Rs.3Or(XX)/-is \ 5 I awa.rded towards ]oss of earnings. FurtJrer, ] 1 amount of Rs.SrqX)/- is granted by the Tribunal towards'at1t ndant charges 'which need not be interfered with.

11. Coming to the disability, though there is disal ility of 4Oo/o as deposed by witness PW2, the functional disability I zould be much less as tJle claimant was working as a clerk but not' physical work. Therefore, the percentage of disat't :ngaged in any ity is taken at 2Oo/o. The claimant was aged 24 years at the timt' of accident. To quantiff the compensation towards loss of future t disability, as per age and income of deceased, if 4( income is included as future prospects as per let' National Insurance Company Ltd. vs' Franay Set the annual income would be Rs.84,OOO/- (Rs'S,OOO/-> As per the authority in Sarla Verma v' t) Corporationz, if the aforesaid annual income is arnings due to percent of the r laid down in ri and otherst, tz + z+,oool-l'. :Ihi Traosport multiplied with relevalt multiplier of '18', the loss of future earning s due to disability at 2Oo/o is Rs.l,51,2OOl- (Rs'tr' of the claimant ,OOO/- x 18 x 2OlLOOl.In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs'3'O2'4( ol-. L2.Accordingly,theM.A.C.M-Aispartlyellowed'i'recompensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced frorc Rs'75,OO0/- to 'zorz (e) rzo (sc) '(zoog) o s.c.c. rzr I 6 Rs.3,O2,4OO/-, which shall carry interest at Z.SC'/o pbr ann,m from the date of petition tiII the date of realization. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 , shall deposit the amount within a period of (g) weeks from t].e date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the clairnant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing t],e securit5r. Miscellaneous petitions, il .ny, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REG! ECTION OFFICER Accident Claims Tribunal um ll Additional District

1. The Chairman Motor Judge, Nizamabad. 2. One CC to Sri P. Rad hive Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies To, AS/kam Y< \ HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 )ll\la 11r l[t lst o 'rY !SFi:,1 ..1/ 7- (; _)-- +( JUDGMENT+DEGREE MACMA.No.3461 of 2012 ALLOWED Go{"L Xp' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMTJUSTICE RENUKAYARA M.A.C.M.A.No:. 3461 OF 2O12 Between: Kothuru Madhusudhan, S/o. K. Gopal AND 1 P. Madhuri, D/o. P. Kishan Goud ...AppellanUClaimant 2 Rl dismissed for defauh vide Court order dated 16-12-201 1 The National lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager Branch ffice, B. Laxmiraj Complex, Jawahar Road, Nizambad. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 16{8-2007 made in M.V.O.P.No.1949 of 2OO2 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. 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 arguments of Sri P. Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri N.S. Bhaskara Rao, Advocate for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is here by enhanced from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.3,02,40O/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That the Respondent Nos.l & 2 shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit, the claimant is be and hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount without fumishing the security;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPYII Sd/.M OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR \\f. ;Eb TION OFFICER -- --1 To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Vl I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies AS&amw HIGH COURT DATED:0910712025 DECREE MACMA.No.3461 of 2012 ALLOWED ,{A\-t -*or