The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. This appcal arises out ofan award passed by. XV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in MVOp.It t. 734 of 2Ol7 dated 06.09.2021 .

2.1 The facts in the OP are that the appellanl claimant was going slowly on left side of the road on his motort;r'r le bearing No. AP-23-AN 9166 from Gowlidoddi to ICICI Bank to a tend his duty on 23.12.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., when he reach 'd near Wipro circle signal at that time a car bearing No. AP-O9,T./ 9 125 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the mo,t rcyr:le of the appeliant/claimant in which he sustained fracture r I l) I 2 vertebra, fracture of left transverse process of Dl2, fracturc r f leli 12fr rib, fracture anterior L4 and L5, head injury and blunt I juries all over the body and he u'as shifted to Rajitha Hospital, (l rchibowli and later on took treatment at Tilak Nagar Hospital e rd he is stili undergoing tre alment.

2.2 The appellant/claimant was aged about 42 yez :s at the time of accident and was healthy, earning Rs. lO,OO0/ rcr month b1, doing housekeeping job and used to look after his I mily. By _the //' \. --_1 2/to RRMR,.I MACMA.No.a6 ot 2022 - date of petition he was not doing any job due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and prayed to award Rs.9,OO,OO0/- with interest at the rate of lSVo per annum with costs.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were set ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3 hled its counter denying the accident and also raised several contentions and also pleaded that the petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and driver of the motor cycle and the compensation claimed by appellant/claimant is excessive, prayed for dismissal.

4. Appellant is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3 RW I is examined, Exs.B 1 to 83 are marked.

5.1. The Tribunal based on the evidence led by the parties has awarded the following compensation. Head of payment Amount fracture of D 12 vertebra Rs. 1,00,OO0/- fracture of left transverse process of Rs. 1,00,OO0/- Dt2 fracture of left 12ft rib fracture of left ankie Rs. 1,00,00O/- Rs. 1,00,0OO/- 3,/ lo I3RMR, J 1ACMA No 86 of 2022 Extra nourishment Transportation charges Medical expenses Rs.5C, )0O/- Rs.5C, )OO/- Rs.5C, )OO/- Total Compensation payable Rs.5,:> ),O00/-

5.2 Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were jointly and severe 1 y liable to pay the compensation with proportionate costs and inte r:st at the rate of 7.5'% per annum from the date of petition till thc c tte of deposit, out of which appellant/claimant was permittccl to withdraw Rs.4,50,O00/ - along with interest on the entire am3 tnt and costs and Rs.1,O0,O00/- shall be kept in a Nationalized B:rr .k for a periocl of two years in the interest generating lxed deposit.

6. Learned counsel for the appettant/claimant srr rmits that the Tribunal failed to consider the disability and 1o: s of earning capacity of the appellant and the cvidence of PW2 is rot taken into consideration at proper prospective :rnd also faiied tt award loss of earning, loss of amenities, social status, shock and nental agony. The Tribunal failed to award anv amount tou.a r ls pain and suffering though the appellant has claimed Rs.4O,C( 0/ , which is just and reasonable and also failed to award dzrrr lges tou.ards clothing and articles and failed to apply the mult plier method towards continuing or permanent disabilify, the Trib_ -ral has failed to consider the loss of earnings. In support of his c.: ttention, has r 4/ r0 BRMR. J MACMA.No.86 of 2022 relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Syed Saleem vs' Abdul Shukur and anotherl, (ii) Y. Devendar Goud Vs' S.Papaiah and another2 (iii) J. Santosh Reddy @ Santosh Vs P'Narsimha and another3. The appellant has enhanced the claim from Rs'9'OO'OOO/- to 7 . 14,15,OOO/- which was allowed by this Court vide I'A'No'2 of 2022' dated 75.O7.2022

8. Respondent Nos. i and 2 were served with the notice in the appeal but no one aPPcared' g. Learned counsel for respondent No 3 submits that the appellant/ClaimantwenltoPW2afterthreemonthsoftheaccident andheisnotatreateddoctor.trx.A6(disabilitycertificate)issued by PW2 cannot be considered' 1O. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the quantum awarded to the aPPellant'

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

12. The only point arises for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable --1" -'- "' ' 1zooz1 r nrn :sz 'MACMA.No. 17o9 al)d 4406 of 20 12, daLed L2'O4 2023 of the High Court for Lhe State of Telangana at Hyderabad , MecN,ra. No. t +zs oI 201 1 , daled oa og.,2o22 of .1re High court for thc state of Telangana at Ilyderabad RRMR. J !,IACIUA-No.86 of 2022

13. The evidence of PW 1 is that at the time of r was aged about 42 years and was hale and healtl he accident he y, was earning Rs.10,0OO/- per month by doing housekeeping joLr : nd was looking after his family, he was treated for a period of fir'e to six months. The Tribunal has totally ignored to calculate the :arnings of the appellant.

14. PW2 is the orthopedic surgeon and he is al ;o a member of the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospitzli' Hyderabad. He deposed that patient by name K.Hanumanthu cant' to his clinic on

27.O3.2017 with a complaint of low back ache, an < in the left flank. The patient met with a road traff r month of December 2O 16 and he trea[ed tt- medication and physiotherapy, who came severa to O4.09.2O18' The dis'r treatment up appeliant/claimant is around 25o/o ' wh,ich, is perme functional. The loss of earning capacity is 607o anr the appellan t/ claimant to work as house keepe: the claimant to carry hand stick for support ul e pain and pain accident in the r patient with lime s for future rililv of nent partial and it is difficult for and he advised i1e walking, the claimant cannot carry weights, walk long distarLr e and stand for prolonged periods and it is difficult for him to benc and the injuries sustained by the patient are gnevous in nature z ed issued Ex.A6 disability certificate. .- \ 'l .F_rt 6/ ro BRMR, J MACMA.No.86 of 2022

15. Ex.A4 is the original CT Lumbosacral Spine Scan report issued by the TESLA Diagnostics of the claimant dated 23.12.2OL6, the injuries noted there on are (i) Burst fracture of D12 vertebral body with anterior wedge collapse and minimal pre-vertebral soft tissue collection (ii) fracture of left transverse process of D12 and adjacent left 12h rib (iii) anterior osteophytes at L4 and L5. In all the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,O00/- each for the fracture injuries.

16. In Syed Saleem's case'this Court has observed at paragraph No. 14 that the time gap in obtaining the disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as disability cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries, but naturaliy tJle wounds have to be yield so as to make assessment of the disability- The time taken in obtaining the disability certificate in the instant case is not too long to doubt its genuinity.

77. In Y. Devendar Goud's case2 this Court observed at paragraph No.6 as under: "Admittedly, the claimant has sustained injuries and he was studying [I year Engineering as the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in B.Rqmulamma u. V.Venkatesh Bus Union - 2OO9 (6) ALD 634 (DB), the income of the claimant who was studying tl Year Engineering at the time of accident carl be taken at Rs,S,600/- per month and if the future p(Qsrycts at 4oo/o are addcd, the monthly income would come to Rs.13,440/- (Rs.9,600+3,84O). As per Schedule ll of the Act, iI the - 7 /to IIItMR. J In OMA. No.86 of2022 annual income is multiplied with relevant multrplier 1o rI injured i.e. 18, the total future earnings o[ the clairnant r life would be Rs.29,03,040/- (Rs. l3,44OXl2X18). Due t,r sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had sr r disability. Hence, he I.: (Rs.29,03,040X20 / l0O) towards loss of income duc to (li s entitled : agt: of the lris normal -he inj uries tuntd 20%o s,80,608/ - t) ili t\,. "

18. In J. Santosh Reddy's caser this Court obsen,,,. t at paragraph Nos.17 and 18 as under: "17. It is settled proposition that the effect of drsa ) income earning capacitv- is the factor for consideration r compensatron for the disability and it is common knorr l,.r disabitit-v rated bv the doctor ',r'ould reler to the ph] sr( . Thus, taking the particular of inability to sit for long tir r inconvenier.rce stated by the doctors, the petitt()n( r disability alfecting the income earning capacity is belicr t,:l r t\ ,)n thc r asscssing Se tlrat the d isabilitv. an(l other ; plrvsica I i\l 2iol'

18. In the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu De Naresh Kumar - AIR 2O2O SC 424 held that frrtur, enunciated in the dictum of National InsuraDce Co Prauay Sethi - 2OL7 116l SCC 860 and others is equirlt. to the cases of injuries tn asscssment of compensation ' the age and pleaded occupation of the petitioner, 4oolt ol has to be added towards future prospects. Accorrlinglr loss of income at 25y" would be Rs.75,600/ . If rl multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of p, 17, the total amount comes to Rs.12,85,200/-, The I entitled to this amount towards loss of future income , r. disability." r Yadav vs prospects Ltd. Vs. rrpplicable t refore, br lre income Ire ernn ual s sum is t ioner i.e., 'titloner is ,ing to the

19. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued [ry P\r' 2, who is also a qrember of meclical board of Osmania (ic I I ral Hospitat Hyderabad. Appellant went to PW2 for treatmcr alter three !rr- \ r:l BRMR, J MACMA.No.86 of 2022 ..1 months of the accident. The evidence of PW2 cannot be brushed aside in toto with that of Ex.A6. This Court is of view that PW2 is competent to issue Ex.A6 disability certificate and the decision in Syed Saleem' case is squarely applicable.

20. The Tribunal failed to answer the loss of earning and did not consider Ex.A6 disabiiity certificate but awarded Rs.4,O0,OOO/- for four grievous injuries. The decisions in Y. Devendar Goud2 case and J. Santosh Reddy'case are applicable to the case on hand.

21. The Court can grant compensation exceeding the claim amount subject to payment of Court fees, the same is considered by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and othersa, reiterated in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9 SCC 54; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2ol4l 3 SCC 210 and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud Kumbhar and others, 2015 (3) ALD 141 (SC) = (2015) 4 SCC 237.

22.1 Accident has taken place on 23.12.2016, as per the ciaim petition, the appellant/claimant used to earn Rs.1O,O00/- per month as a housekeeper. This Court is of the view that the earnings of the appellant per month is taken as Rs.8,O00/- which will meet the ends of justice. The appellant was aged abottt 42 4 2003(r) ALD r (SC) = (2003) 2 SCC 274 -..-, 9/to T]IIMR,.I IACMA No 86 of 2022 years at the time of the accident and future prosp( ( :s to be added at 25ok. The determination of compensation is as ur r e r: Sl.No. Name of the Head Compr nsation Monthly income Rs.8,00O/ - Add 25Vo future prospects (as per National Insurance Co-Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethis) Rs.1O,0O0i 8,000 + ((8,( ,O0 x 25%ol 2,OOO) Annual income lMultiplier'14' As per Smt.Sarla Varma lVs. Delhi Transport Co Disabili tv ration6 Pain and suffering [,oss of earning capacity Transportation charges, nourishment, damages to clothing, nursing, shock and mental Total compensatioa Rs. 1,20,0O0 / 10 oo0 x !:) Rs. 16,80,0(r( / (i,20,00O x I t) Rs.4,20,O00 I 16,80,00O x l5% Rs.40,0O0/ I Rs.60,0O0/- Rs.10,OO0 x r months Rs. 1,50,O00 ' Rs.6,7O,OOO/. T 2 4 J 6 7 8 fs.

22.2 InLerest to be awarded at the rate o[ go/o pcr. nnum as pcr the dccision of the Supreme Court in Anjali :rrr I Others vs. Lokendra Rathod and othersT.

23. MACMA.No.86 of 2022 is allowed in part as hc., rrncler . (2O L7l AC,J 2700 | (2009) A() r298 (SC) ' 2022 SCC O Lule SC 1683 \ .- \-l 10/ r0 BRMR, J MACMA.No-a6 of 2022 ..1 1) The appeliant/claimant is awarded compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) with interest at the rate of 9%o per annum from the date of petition (O2.O3.2O l7l tili realization. 2) Respondents No. 1 to 3 are jointly arrd severally liable to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, less the amount already deposited if any. 3) The appellant/ claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing security. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. (With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri. K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies N HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.86 of 2022 a\i( THE S t4 [ 2 DRAFTS] 1? 0tu : ?.- I '(' 5 .[,, ,ir)i <,,,,,,. ALLOWED.IN-PART WITHOUT COSTS. a [ 3/t48 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 86 OF 2022 Between: K.Hanumanthu, S/o Late.Venkajah Aged 43 years Occ. Housekeeper, presenfly nil, R/o H-No.3-461 114110 Keshava Nagar, Gowlidoddi, Serilingampally, Hyderabad. ..Applilaht AND 4 Bantu Srinivas, S/o Shankaraiah Aged Major Occ. Owner of Car R/o H-No.l- 6- 185/8, Bapuji Nagar, [t/usheerabad, Hyderabad-500003. Vemula Janardhan, S/o Keshanna Aged Major Occ. Driver R/o H-No..l0-10, Vaddeman, Bijnapally, Mahaboobnagar Dist-5002'1 5 o lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Co Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 3-6-565, 9ama Towers, Himayat Nagar Road, Gagan Mahil, Domalguda, Himayath Nagar, Hyderabad, Telangana- 500029. ...Respondents Counsel for the Appellants. Sri. K. Harimohan Reddy Appeal filed Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act.'1 988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 734 of 2017 daled. 61912o2'l on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXV Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. 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. K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri. Harinath Reddy Soma , Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 & 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed- in-part,

2. That the appellanuclaimnant is be and hereby awarc:d compensation of Rs.6,70,0001(Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Thousan<l only) with interest @ 9okp.a. from the date of petition (21312017) till realizalir n;

3. That the respondent no- 1 to 3 are jointly and severz ly liable to pay the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of rt: eipt of a copy of the Judgment, less the amount already deposited if any;

4. That the appellanUclaimnant is be and hereby entitled t r withdraw -the entire amount without furnishing security;

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

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.' SD/. ] I, OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XX t/ Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. (With records, if any)

2. fwo CD Copies AS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:02/05/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.86 ot 2022 ALLOWED-IN.PART WITHOUT COSTS. ( u