The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri' Alladi Ravinder Counsel for the Respondents No'1 and 2: None appeared Counsel for the Respondent No' 3: Sri' A Rama Krishna Reddy The Court made the following: Judgement T J I I I I i I I , THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A .No.77t oF 2o2t JUDGMENT: This a6rpeal is filed by Lhe claimant, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dared 20.0t .2O2O in M.V.O.p.No. 19 of 2Ol9 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Spl. Judge for Trial o1' Cases und.er SCs/STs (pOA) Act-cum_V Aciditional District and Sessions.Iudge at Adilabad (for short ,,the Tribunal,,).

2. For convenience ancl clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they u,ere a rrayed before [he Tribunal.

3. The c:ase of the pe titioner before the Tribunal was that on O 1.04.2013 z t aboul lg:30 hours while the petitioner was proceeding on motorbike bearing No.Ap-O1 -AB- 26g9 fromAsifabad to Wankidi, u.hcrr hc rcached the outskirts of Wankidi Vi[age, in the mean time one auto trolley bearing No.Ap_O1-y-3g87 driven b5, its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorbikc of the petitioner, due to which the petitioner fell down and sustainecl fracture injuries and that immediately, he was shifted to G,lv(rrnment Hospital, Asifabad and after which he went to Prathimri lnstitute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar and underwent inpatient treatment. Again he was shifted to sunrise {goi,ut, K,rrimnagar and underwenr Lreatment at the said hospital and tLus, he incurred an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/_ tos,ards 2 ETD,J MACMA No.771 2021 hospital and medical expenses. He is therefore claiming Rs. 1,50,000/ - towards compensation.

4. The respondent Nos- 1 and 2 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed counter affidavit denying the averments of the petitlon with regard to the occurrence of the accident and contended that the auto trolley was not involved in the said accident. They further contended that the driver of the auto trolley rvas not holding valid driving license and that their company is not Iiable to pay any compensation'

6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for consideration:- 1 . Wltether the fractures and injuies coused to the petitioner due to rosh and negligent driuing of tLrc diuer of auto trolleg beaing No.AP-O1-Y-3887? 2 Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation If so, to uhat amount ond from u-thom?

3. To uhat relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examined PW1 and 2 and trxs.Al to Al2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents RWI was examined and Ex.Bl is marked.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has dismissed the petition EffiF;7 i!! ,. 3 ETO,J MACMA No.771 2021

9. Hear<l .iri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant ar-rd Sri Alladi Ravinder, learned counsel for respondents. 1O. Basecl on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the following poin- s for determination:

1. Whether the accident ocanrred due to tlrc rash and negligence of the diuer of auto trolley bearing No.Ap 01-Y 3887, resulttng in injuries to the petitioner?

2. W.\etlrcr the pelitioner is e ntitLed. to ang co,npensation?

3. Wtiether the order and d_ecree of the Tibunal need ony interference? To tL,hat relieJ?

4. Point No. 1: 11 a) PW1 is the injured eye witness in this case and he reiterated the avermen ts of his petition in his evidence before the Court. The petitioner's urrcle is the complainan t and the contents ol- the complaint rr:veal that one unknou,n vehicle has hit the motorbike of his nephe w i.e., the injured and thus the identilv of the vehicle is not reveal,ld in the complaint. As far as the F.lR is concerned, the same contents are reiterated. trx.A2/charge sheet is fiied against the driver of thc auto trolley by name_Banala Veeresh. Ex.A4 is the outpatient carc. dated 02.O4.2013 at prathima Instirute of Medical Scierlces, wLrer:in it is mentioned that the petitioner was hit in a road accident ty a 1orry and he was found to be conscious, drowsy and under the ir-rfluence of alcohol. Thus it is contended by the \- 4 ETD,J MACMA No.771 2021 ':.,:.; respondent No.3 that at the time of accident, the deceased was travelling on a motorbike in an inebriated condition. b) The Tribunal has held that in Ex.A4, it is mentioned that the injured was under the impact of alcohol and thus held that he contributed Lo the accident. However, a careful perusal of Ex.A4 shows that it is dated O2.O4.2O13 while the accident occurred on

01.04.2013. So the impact of alcohol as revealed from the Ex.A4 happens to be on O2.O4.2O13, while the accidenl occurred on O1.4.2013. Therefore, it cannot be held that the petitioner was under the impact of alcohol at the time of accident. This finding of the Tribunal is opined to be wrong. Further iL is also revealed from the charge sheet that the driver of the auto trolley surrendered himself, as he was brought by the owner of the auto trolley to the Police Station. The evidence of injured witness rf taken into consideraLion, he staled that he was hit by the auto trolley, though he could not reveal the number of the auto trolley in lhe complaint which was lodged by his uncle. Based on the charge sheet/Ex.A2 and the evidence of PW1, it is held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of auto trolley bearing No.AP-0 1-Y-

3887. Point No.l is answered accordingly. ! -F-' //- ETD,] MACMA No.771 2021

12. Point No.2: c) The F,etitioner has claimed Rs.3,50,00O/_ towards compensation. A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that he sustained grievous blunt injuries on right leg and simple injury on left hip. Ex.A4 revezrls that the petitioner came with the history of accident and complain ed about vomiting, seizures and ENT Bleed. They have noticed laceration over the anteri.or aspect of right leg. Ex.AS is the Discharge Summary o[ Renec Hospiral dated 02.O4.20 13 and he was clischarged on 03.04.2013. A perusal of trx.A5 reveals [hat the petitioncr sustained G4 comminuted fracturc of right tibia in the upper thirC and suffered haemorrhage shock ar-rd also fracture of right third linger. The petitioner was treated conservatively. He also filed IDx.A6 disclosing his inpatient treatment at Sunrise Hospital an,C 1.hat he was admitted on 03.04.2013 for surgery to treat the compound fracture of right shaft tibia and llbula ancl he u.as treated q,:th lateral tibial locking plate fixation He u,zrs also prescribed vrith certain medicines. Ex.A7 is a set of prescriptions at Dr. Bhoom Retldy's Hospital on different dates, he has also filed a bunch of d iallnostic reports and medical bills. Ilased on the evidence on rer:ord, it is held that the petitioner has sustained two grievous injur es and one simple injury in the accidcnt and underwent tre€rtment as discussed supra. Considering the nature of injury susta: ne d by the petitione r and Lhe treatment underwent r..>4-". I r I 6 ETD,J MAcMA No.771 2021 ':: by him, it is opined that an amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- is awarded under the heads ofpain and suffering. d) PW2lDr. K. Vamshidhar Reddy is a Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon at Sunrise Hospilal, Karimnagar. flis evidence reveals that the petitioner was trcated at Sunrise Hospital, Karimnagar and that he has incurred an expenditure of Rs.80,00O/-. In his cross examination, nothing material was elicited to discredit his evidence. He also deposed that 46 and A7 are issued by their Hospital and that Ex.AS are the reports based on hrs prescriptions and that the receipts under Ex.A10 are issued by him. The Blood requisition under trx.A I I is also bascd on his prescription and the X-ray films under Ex.A 1 2 are taken on his advice. He further deposed that the medical bills filed under trx.A9 refer to his prescription. Therefore, the petitioner could prove his medical expenses of Rs.8O,OOO/-. In addition to that the petitioner must have sustained expenses towards extra nourishment, transport, attendant and incidental expenditure, therefore an amount of Rs.2O,OOO/ - is awarded towards such incidental expenditure and thus a total amount of Rs. 1,0O,OOO/- (8O,0O0 + 2O,O00) is awarded under the head "Hospital, Medical Expenses, Transport, Extra- nourishment." No disability is claimed by the petitioner and hence the sarne is not awarded. -r' "F_1rrF {_e.arr},i7 Y,L - I I I I I I I I 1 EID,] MACMA No.771 2021 e) The pet;tioner stated that he was working as a carpenter and he used to earn Rs.20,0OO/ - per month. In trx.A3 also the avocation of the petitioner is mentioned as carpenter, his age as mentioned in ,he discharge summaries is taken as ,25, vears. 0 Ir', Ramachq.ndrappa Vs. Manage4 Rogal Sund.aram Alliq.nce Insurance Compang Limitedl, the Apex Court has held that in the a bsence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income. But in the pretient case, the deceased used t.o work as carpenter as per the coltte ntion of the claim petitioncrs. Thereforc, on a reasonable :rypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas,s case, the monthly income of ttre deceased is assessed as Rs;.6,0O0/- per month and the same amount is taken by the Tribunal also. g) It is thr: common knowledge that without a reasonable physical fitn,:ss;, one cannot attend to his/her normal work. In the light of the t:vilence with regard to the injuries sustained by the petitioner arLd the treatment underwent by him and also taking into consideration the time required lor the injuries to heal, it is reasonable to rLccept that he was out of work for a[ least about three months. Accordingly, a sum of 18,000/_ (6000 x 3) is awarded as corr.pensation towards loss of earnings. rlzottytuscc236 h) In ali, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation 8 ETD,I MACMA No.771 2021 amounts:- No. 1.

4. Name of the heads Awarded by this Court l Compensation under the head i tnjuries, shock, Pain and suffenng Compensation of loss of earnings (past lhree monlhs) I Compensation under the head of hospital, Medical Expenscs, transport, extra-nourishment , (Rq.8Op00 + Rs 20,000) ;Total s0,000/- 18,o00/- 1,00,000/- 1,68,OOO/- i) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.1,68,0OO/- while the Tribunal has dismissed the O.P. without awarding any compensation amount. Hence, point No. 1 is answered accordingly.

13. Point No.2 In view of the finding arrived at point No. 1, it is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal is notjust and proper and hence, needs to be set aside.

14. Point No.3 In the result, the MACMA hled by the appellants is allowed, setting aside the Order and Decree dated 20.Ol .2O2O in M.V.O.P.No. 19 of 2Ol9 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Clarqns Tribunal-cum-Sp1. Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs --- t I i i . t+1-! lFlq:.rrrt -=r:t /:./ 9 ETD,] MACMA No.771 2021 (PoA) Act-cr,rm-v Additionar District and sessions Judge at Adilabad .end the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1 ,68,000/ - and the compensation shall carry interest rg: T .So/o per annum from the dale of claim petition till realization. However, the interesr, f<rr the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. Respondent No.3 is direct,:d to deposit the compensation amount with accruecl interest rvithin a period of two months from the dare of receipt o[ a copy of thi:; j udgment after deducting the amount rf any already deposited. on such deposit, the appellant is entitred Lo *.i[hdrarn. the said amount u,ithout lurnishing any sccurity. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closecl. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMATL DEPUTY REGISTRAR L9 To, SECTION OFFICER 1. The chairman Additional IvIACT-cum-Spl.Judge For Trial of cases Under SCs/srs (Poa) Act - cum - V Additionar District And Sessions Judge, At Adilabad (With Records, if any).

2. One CC to SRl. ALLADI RAVINDER, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI A. RAMA KRISHNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies; GK Yx 'I ', HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 I I t , : i { I I I i I I t i JUDGEMENT MACMA.No.771 of 2021 ll "\;.5 5 {, '', (:) ) 1l0tT ?ffi +--..,ir.tr,... -, ' . PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUTCOSTS GCgI '.k+' 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE'TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MtSC ELLANEOU S APPEAL NO:7 71 0F 2021 Between: Jambojula tvlahesh, Mahendar, S/o' Ramaiah' aged about 29 years' Occ-Carpenter R/o. Ramnagar, Adilabad district ..AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Banala Veeresh, S/o. Rajaiah Age 21 years' Occ- Driver of Auto Trolley bearing No.AP01 Y-3887, Rl/o ' h No 3-265 Samdeepnagar' Asifabad'

2. Gulam Javid, S/o. Jilani, age Malor, Occ Owner of Auto Trolley bearing No' . AP01 Y-3887' Fl/o. h.No. 6-190, Rajampet Village and Mandal Asifabad'

3. chola IvlS General lnsurance company Limited,, rep by its [Vlanager, Branch Office 2-3-184 and 184/A, 1st floor, Satguru Aracade beside Venkatreddy eye hospital Kaman road, Karimnagar' Telangana ..-Res Pondents/ResPondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of tVlotor Vehicles Act' 1 988 against the AwardanddecreeinO.P.No.lgof20lg,daled2O/0112020'onthefileofthe Court of the The Chairman, Additional tr4ACT-Cum-Spl Judge For Trial Of ca=.s-unael.SCs/STs(Poa)Act-Cum-VAdditionalDistrictAndSeSSionS Judge, At Adiiabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds..of appeal, the Judgment undD""r"" of the Tribunal and the material papers in the a"r-J il upon hearing the arguments of sri Alladi Ravinder, Advocate for the npp"ffr"tt and of Sri Ahama Klrisnna Reddy' Advocate for the Respondent No 3 and none appeared for the respondent No'1 and 2' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Moto'Accident civir lVlisceflaneous Appear be and hereby is alowed setting aside rhe order and decree oatea zoiorno2o in tr/Vop iv".iglzorg passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal _"rr_Spf .lrJg" for Trial of cases under scs/ srs (poA) Act -cum-V Additionar District and Sessions Judge at Adirabad and the petitioner is entifled for compensation of Rs 'l '68,000r and the compensation sha, carry interest @ t s"t" per ainum from the date of claim petition till realization.

2. That however, the interest for the period of delay if any, is forfeited. 3 That the resp.ndent No.3 is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrueri interest within a period two months from ft," iri" oi'r"..,p't;; - " . copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if any arready u"p"riiIl 4' That the aprpeflant is be and hereby entifled to withdraw the said amount 5 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunar sha, stands confirmed in 6. That there tre no order as to costs in this appeal. without furnishing any security all other respects; and //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To, l The chairman, Additionar Ir/ACT-cum-spr.Judge For Triar of cases Under :fiij;H (poa, Act - cum _ v Addiiioni DLiiit eno Sessions Judse, At

2. Two CD Copies GK w HIGH COURT DATED:2410312025 DECREE MACMA.No.771 ot 2021 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUTCOSTS \-et{'u &tr