The High Court · 2025

Judgment

The appellant/claimant filed the present appeal against the Award and decre€ przlsssd by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Cum - Spl.J,rdge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act - Cum - V Additional t)istrict and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') i.r M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017, dated

05.10.2018, wherein claimant/ petitioner had filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.15,10,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 12.02.2016.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.O.P.No.!195 of 2O17 under Section 166(1)(a) of the M.V.Act, 1988 seeking corrpensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the Eicher Van. It is contended that on L2.O2.2O16, the petitioner was proceeding :owards Khanapur from Nirmal town on a motorcycle bearing No.'lS- 16-EE-9828 and when he reached near Voddepally Village, the lriver of Eicher Van bearing No.AP-02-W-8779 came in a rash and nellligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's 2 lviltt.J !{AoMA r{pig-9f292e motorcycle from behind, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained grievous injuries, fracture on head and suffered fractures of two legs and other injuries on the other parts of the body. The petitioner was taken to Area Hospital, Nirmal for treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.13 of 2O16 under Section 337 and 338 of IPC against the respondent No.1/driver of offending vehicle. l',1-: -

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that prior to the accident, the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,00,00O/- per year by attending agricultural operation and due to accident, the petitioner sustained fractures all ,over the body and suffered total disability and petitioner was completely bed ridden and also incurred huge. expenditure for the treatment and claimed an amount of Rs.15,1O,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained ex- parte. The respondent No.2 Sriram General Insurance Company Limited., filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, dge., avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of the offending Vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at /2, i\ 3 XNR.J MACMA l,lo.3 of 2O2O the time of accident and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, thr: learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the injuries caused due to rash and negligent driuing of the driuer oJ the crime uehicle? ii) Whetlrcr the petitioner is entttled for compensatton, if so, to what amount andfromwhom? iii)To wlnt relief

6. In supllort of the petitioner's case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and also examined PW.2 and got marked Exs.A.l to 4.16. On behalf .of the respondents none examined but Ex.B1- Copy of Insurance Policy was marked

7. After p'lrusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire rt:cord and the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribrrnal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.2,O5r28O | - along with interest @ 7 .5% per €rnnum.

8. Being trnsatisfied by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learnr:d Tribunal, the present appeal is filed on the ground that \\ \ 4 ,vlrl8.J MAChIA li[o.3 of 2O2O the learned Tribunal ignored the evidence placed by the petitioner, that the petitioner used to earn Rs.2,O0,0OO/- per year and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitioner unable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable to lift weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that petitioner has lost his future prospect, but the learned Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs.2,O5,28O/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation under other heads.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sustained the following injuries: Contusioll ouer lefi tempo paietal region, -i) ii) Abrasion ouer right forearm, iii) Abrasiorl ot)er right shoulder. 1O. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that petitioner also got examined the Doctor who treated him as PW.2, and he has stated that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on

12.02.2016 with head injury and injuries all over parts of body and the petitioner has taken X-Ray and C.T.Scan and other necessary medical tests and found that petitioner has suffered i) head injury left temporo parietal contusion, decomponessiew, craniotomy and bone flap kept in {-\ 5 Aa4.J ,tlACW No.3 of 2O2O abdomen an<1 it is further submitted that from the evidence of PW2, that the petitioner was treated for the injuries and the petitioner will face difficulty in coing day to da-r,'rvork 1 1. Learne<l counsel for the petitioner further contended that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court wherein it has been settled the law by stating that Motor Vehicle Act is a 'berrcficial legislation' and the victim needs to be awarded a reasonable and just compensation and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view in awarding compensation, as the petitioner has suffered from severe disability and unable to attend any work for the rest of his life. The learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,O5r28O,r- which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

12. Learnec. counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the Award judgment and submitted that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensatiorr, which needs no interference.

13. Heard liri .l\l.Srushman Reddg, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Horlnorth Red.ctg somc, learned counsel for the respondent 6 JV]{R.J MACMA I'b.3 of 2O2O No.2- Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. None appeared for respondent No.1. Perused the material on record.

14. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what ertent? Point No.1

15. Adrnittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident occurred on

12.02.2016. The petitioner claimed that he was aged about 40 years and "to earn Rs.2,O0,0OO l- per year by attending agricultural operation. PW2-Dr.K.Balakrishna Reddy, consultant Neuro Surgeon in Sri Krishan Neuro and Multi Speciatty Hospital, Nizamabad has deposed before the learned Tribunal that petitioner was admitted in his hospital on L2.02.2OL6 with head idury and other injuries and after careful examining all the reports of the petitioner, PW2 found that petitioner has suffered i) head injury left temporo parietal contusion, decomponessiew, caraniotomy done and bone falp kept in abdomen and PW.2 also conducted surgery on the petitioner with regard to the // ./ i i I I I I I I l !l i ; i I i r! i I : : l ') I 7 NIIR.J MACMA t[o.3 of 2O2O contusion o::r t4.02.2OL6. PW2 further averred that petitioner was discharged cn 29.02.2016 with an advice to take follow up treatment and further stated that petitioner cannot attend any manual u,ork throughout h is lifetime.

16. The petitioner has not filed any disability certificate before the learned Tribtrnal nor in this Court #.th regard to permanent disability certificate and in the grounds raised by the petitioner only averred to enhance the compensation amount granted by the learned Tribunal, hence grantirrg the compensation under the head 'future prospects'does not arise. The petitioner claimed that he was earning Rs.2,00,O00/- per y€tr , howevt:r no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show that the petitioner was earning Rs.2,0O,OOO l- per year. t7. In Shctilch So,dik Shailc Rafique a. Reliance Genera.l Insurance Compang Limited qnd. othersl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enhanced the compensation amount of the deceased, who was unskilled labour to Rs,1O,O00/- per month, and the relevant paragraph No.S reads as unde,r for read reference: "5. Ramtr,chandrappa as. Manager, Royal Sundo,rann Alliance rnsurance compang Limlted. determined an income of Rs.4,5o0/- 1 2ozs scc Ors[ine SC 1092 \ B .IVNR.J IWACMA No.3 of 2O2O per month in the year 2004 for a coolie. A Constitution Bench in Nattonal Insurance Compang Limited. us. Praruag Setii and. Others found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed ot Rs.SOO/- per month for euery successiue Aear. In the present case, the accident. occurred in the year 2015, 11 years afier 2004 and going bg the pinciples stated in the afore-cited decisions the appellant, an unskilled worker would be entitled to claim monthlg income of Rs.IQ000/-"

18. In view of recent judgment, dated 13.05.2025, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shcrikh Sadik Shcrilc Ra.fi.que's ccse (cited supra) and looking at the avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined, to grant Rs.grOOO/- as notional monthly income of the petitioner. L9. The petitioner might have taken rest for six months to heal the fractures injuries, but the learned Tribunal missed the sight and not granted any Ermount under the head 'loss of future earning', hence this Court is inclined to grant six month income to the petitioner i.e., Rs.l4rOOO/- (Rs.9,OO0 x 6) towards 'loss of earnings',.

20. As per Ex.A6 - Cash receipts for an amount of Rs.1,31,200 /- and Ex.A8-Clinial reports along with pharlnacy bills for an amount of 9 rvrYR.J IIIACMA ltb.3 of 2O2O Rs.7,OBO/- in total Rs.1,38,280/-, which was granted by the Tribunal appears to tre reasonable and needs no interference.

21. Ex.AS shows that petitioner received one grievous and two simple injuries ancl the Tribunal granted an arnount of Rs.35,000/- for one grievous iqury and Rs.12,000/- towards two simple injuries which ,- .appears to tre meager and this Court is inclined to enhance the amount forone grievous injury to Rs. 40,OO0l- and Rs.20,000/- each for simple injury.

22. The l,:arned Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of tdamages to clothing and articles', admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident and. the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this court feel it appropriate to grant Rs.5,o00/- towards cornpensation under the head of 'damage to clothing and articles'. Th,: |sanled Tribunal has also not awarded any amount under the head of 'pain and sufferance', the learned rribunal ought to have awarded tht: same, hence, this Court is inclined to grant Rs.2o,Oool- under the hr:ad 'pain and sufferance'.

23. The Tribunal granted Rs.5,000 l- forattendant, transportation and extra nourishment, which appears to meager and the same is enhance 10 l'v .i\tnm.J MACMA l,lo.3 of 2O2O to Rs.20,000/- as against the compensation amount granted by Tribunal, and the learned Tribunal granted Rs.15,OO0/- towards loss of expectation of life and amenities, loss of pleasure, which this Court feel that the said amount granted by the learned Tribunal needs no interference,

24. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cited decision. I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above and given in the table below for easy reference. Head One Grievous Injury TWo Simple Injuries Medical Bills Attendant, Transportation and Extra Nourishment Loss of expectation of life and amenities and loss of oleasure and earninss. Loss'of Future earnings Damages to cloths Pain and sufferance Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arived at by this Court Rs.35,000/- Rs.40,OOO/- Rs.12,OO0/- Rs.1,38,280/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.4O,OOO/- (20,0O0 x 2) Rs. 1,38,280/- Rs.2O,OOO/- Rs. 15,OOO/- Rs.54,OOO/- Rs.S,OOO/- Rs.2O,OOO/- Total Rs.2,O5,28O Rs.3,32,280l- 11 NNR':, MACMA No.3 of 2O2O

25. The Tribunal, while awarding the compensation, granted interest at the rate rtf 7.5o/o per €Lnnum from the date of the petition, and this Court is graeting 9% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of realisation.

26. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,05,2 80 / - to Rs.3,32r2a0 I - (Rupees Three Lakh Thirt:r T\vo Thousand and Two Hundred and Eighty Rupees ,:'l only) with the interest of 9o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together w'ith costs and interesl. after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, W

1. The Chairman l/otor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional District and - Sessions Judge, at Adilabad.

2. One CC; to SRt N. SRUSHMAN REDDy Advocate [opUC] 3. ONE CC; tO SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, AdVOCAtE TOPUC] 4. Two CD,Copies /-^. f t ATE o() -'l? , tts lut {r ,)'"' HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 U2A25 JUDGMEINT+DECREE MACMA.No.3 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ( 4 * [ 34431 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3 OF 2020 Between: M.Ramana Rao, S/o.Rajeshwar Rao, Age 43 years, Occ. Agriculture, presently Nil, R/o.Biloli village, Mandal Lokeshwaram, Diskict Nirmal. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Nishani Laxman , Laxminarayana, S/o.Komuraiah, Age 48 years, Occ. Driver- cum-onwer of the Eicher Van Bearing No.AP02W8779, H/o.H.No.4-1-701, Yellammagutta, NTR Colony, Korutla Town and Mandal, District Jagtial. 2. Shriram General lnsurance Company, E-8, EPIP, RIICO lnduskial Area, Sithapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan State -3O2022. ...Respondents/Respondent No.l & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 0511012018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.295 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-Cum-V Additional Diskict and Sessions Judge, at Adilabad. 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 SRUSHMAN REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri HARINATH REDDY SOME, Advocate for the Respondents 2 and none appeared for respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,05,280/- to TW / Rs.ii,32,280/- (Rupees Three Lakh rhirty Two thousand and rwo Hundred and Eighty Rupees only) with interest of go/o on the enhanced amount of ' compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2. Thal: the Respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

3. That on such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety.

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

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Chairman Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal tgum -Special Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-CumVnOOitionat Oisirict anO Sessions, Judge, at Adilabad.

2. Two CD,3opies a, AS/nvb -/ / HIGH COURT DATED:06/1 012025 DECREE: MACMA.No.3 of 2020 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS