The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHAI.I PATHI RAo M.A.C.M.A.No.539 of 2022 JUDGMENT: The present appeal is filed by the appcl! nt/clairnant for enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the ,t der ald decree, dt.2O.04.2O22, passcd in MVOp No. 102 of 2O1t on the file of chairmar-r, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-ct m-II Adclitional District Judge, Kanmnagar District, at JagtieLJ (lor short ,,the Tribunal").

2. Heard Mr,A.Krupadhar Reddy, learned C unsel for the appellant-claimant and Mr.A.Ramakrishna Reddr,. earned counsel for respondent No. 2-insurance Company.

3. The appellant/claimant frled claim petitior No.l02 of 20 I 7 before the Tribunal, claiming uicle M.V.O.P rmpensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for thc injuries sustajned by him in t re accident that occurred on 12.06.2016_ The Tribunal after elabo;.r trial, has passed an award granting compensation c te enquiry and ' Rs.2,76,292/- under various heads. i I I \ 2

4. Dissatislied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant/claimant has Iiled the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Learned connsel for the appellant submitted that appellant was u,orking as Government Teacher and drawing a monthly saJary of Rs.38,987/- as on the date of accident, and due to the accident, he sustained several grievous and simple injuries, dlle to u.hich l-re had undergone inpatient and outpatient treatment by incurring huge expenditure and that he a-lso availed (40) days medical leave on full pa5,, and the Tribunal erred in not a',r,arding loss of earnings a_ncl future medical expenses. He further submits that the Court below erred in granting meager amounts under the heads of transportation, pain & suffering, medica-l expenses, extra nourishment and prayed to enhance the compensation.

6. Per contra, learned Standing Counsei appearing for respondent No.2, submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and awarded the amount, which is just and proper and interference of this Court is not warranted. 7 . In vieu, of the frndings of the Tribunal that the acciclent took place due to rash and negligent driving of the dri'r,er of the crime I 3 vehicle and thc liability being fixed on respondent and severally, thc only point needs to be determirL, 'los.1 & 2 jointly d is - uwhether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhanceme t t".

8. As per Ex.P3/medical certificate and the: 'idence of PW4- Doctor, who treated the appellant, the appellar had sustained grievous inJuries and underwent surgery by takinp treatment as in- patient for (15) days, due to which, the appellant rvr rld have suffered not only physical pain, but also mental ago - ,, trauma, and inconvenience. Therefore, the amount of Rs.25,0011 '- as awarded by the Tribunal is very meager and is enhanced to Rs : ,00,000/ .

9. As evident from Ex.P10, discharge summar)-, . re appellant was admitted on 15.O6.2016 and discharged on 29.(tt .2016 and thus took 15 days inpatient treatment and from he evidence of PW3/Head Master of petitioner's school, 'petitioner rvarled (78) days of medical leaves on pa!'ment of full salary.

10. As the appellalt is a government teacher ar( had availed full pay leave, though the Tribunal was right in I olding that the appellant did not suffer any financial loss, hou,t: er, erred in not considering 'loss of leave'. The appellant, being tht' rictim of a motor vehicle accident cannot be made to suffer loss of tL ; full pay for the Y 4 benefit of the tortfeasor. In the circumstalces, the appellant is entitled to be paid for the loss of leave. Thus, the appellant is awarded Rs.52,0001- towards loss of (40) days of leave. 1 I . In the nature of injuries sustained and in-patient and follou'-up treatment undergone by the petitioner, he must have incurred considerable amount towards conveyance/ transportation charges. Hence, the amount of Rs.5,000/- arvarded by the Tribunal towa.t'ds transportzrtion charges is enhanced to Rs.1O,00O/-.

72. Furthe r, the findings of the Tribunal in rejecting the appellant's claim torvards future medical expenditure, cannot be sltstained, in vie',v of the evidence of PW4-Doctor, who categorically deposed that the a-ppellant rnay require to undergo further surgery for removal of implants. since, removal of implants necessarily involve further surgery resulting in further medical expenditrre. Hen.je, ar arnount of Rs.50,000/- is arvarded towards further medical expenses.

13. Considering Ex.P15 to P29, i.e., Final Bill and medical bills, and the evidencr; of PW4/Doctor, vrho treated the appellant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.2,36,292/- towards medical expenses. So also, the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by 5 the Tribunal tow:rrds extra nourishment, is just ar r reasonable, and thus, both counts needs no interference.

14. However, the Tribunal erred in not arrr,ar,l ng any amount towards attendant charges. Hence, in view of tht: grievous injuries sustained by the appellant ald the surgery unrl rgone and the prolonged hospitalization, it is just and reas: rable to award Rs. 10,000/- tou,ards attendant charges.

15. With regard to the rate of interest, thorr ,h the Tribunal awarded interest at 7oh per annum, in order to ma ntain uniformity and parity, it just and reasonable to enhance the i rte of interest to 7 .5o/o per annum

16. In view of the above, the total compensati( r, to which the appellant/claimant is entitled, is recalculated as urL er Sl.No. Head Amc rnt 1 2 a 4 Pain & sufferance Rs.2,OO,OOO/- Medical Expenses Rs.2,36,2921- Future Medical Exper-rditure Rs.50,OOO/- Extra Nourishment Rs. lO,OOO/- !-Y 6 5 6 I Transportation i churges Attendant Charges Rs.1O,OOO/- Rs.1O,OOO/- Total compensation: Rs.5,L6,292/- 17 . Accordingly, the appeal is PARTLY allovved modifying the Award by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,76,2921- to Rs.5,16,292/- along r.r,ith interest @ 7 .5% per annum.

18. The 2"a respondent- insurancri company is directed to deposit the cornpensation amount as directed above, within a period of two (02) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdrau. the same. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. //TRUE coPY/ t Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,,.-. (2 SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Chairman [vlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, (MACT), Jagitial, Jagitial District.

2. One CC to Sri A. Krupadhar Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P. Kishore Rao, Advocate IOPUCI 4. One CC to Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies KVR4<am HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 ,. \.'.,\)|r I r I [tB ?$fr ,4 ;< o() ,,9, ''s1 I D,:l r;PAll )7 7. (i) * JUDGMENT MACMA.No.S39 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWED * [ 3485 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENIH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No: 539 OF 2022 Between: Boddukuri Srimannarayana, S/o. Bhoomaiah, Age: 48 years, Occ: Government Teacher, Rl/o. H.No.2-6-2221111, Shivaji Road, Near Hanuman Temple, Korutla proper and Mandal, Karimnagar District. ...AppellanURespondent No. AND

1. Bheemanathi Hemanth Kumar, S/o. Vamshidhar, Age: 20 years, Occ: Driver of Yamaha bike bearing No. Ts 02 EP 0711, Fl/o. H.No. 2-9-4911 , Gandhi Road, Korutla proper and mandal, Jagityal District.

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd, Nizamabad branch, #1/'13-39514, 2"d Floot, Hero Honda Show room, Vinayaka Nagar, Nizamabad Proper and Diskict. ... Respondents/Petitioners Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2017 dated 20-04-2022 on lhe file of the Court of the Chairman l\/otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge, (MACT), Jagitial,. Jagitial District. 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 A. Krupadhar Reddy, Advocate for the Appellants and Sri P. Kishore Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and Sri A. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,76,292 to Rs.5,16,292l- along with interest @ 7.5'/" per annum; 2' Thar the 2nd Respondent - Insurance company be anc rereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount as directed above, rv lhin a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the ord€

3. That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereb "e qr ru I rereoy ts P rmitted to withdraw 4' That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court sr , stands confirmed 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. in all other respects; and the same; ; //TRUE COPY// To, KVR/kam 1 . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims ^ 1udse, (MACT), Jaqitiat, lrgitirl bi;tiT.i.," 2. Two CD Cooies qWAHAR REDDY Sd/. M. " ASSIS"I qNT REGISTRAR Lt* CTION OFFICER !i Tribunal-cum-ll \dditional District HIGH COURT DATED:1711012025 DECREE MACMA.No.539 ot 2022 PARTLY ALLOWED \ J