The High Court · 2025

Heard icarned counsel Sri N. Mukunda Reddv for the appellant / pt:ti t: oner and Sri A.Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for the respclrrlent No.2-insurance company.

2. The prr:sr.nr appeal has been flled bv thc appellanr- l)etitioner dissatished wit-h the award passed by the CharrmatL, Motor Accidents Clarrns Tribunal-cum I Addl.District Judge, l'{algonda (for short. "l:-itrunal') in O.P.No.7O4 ol 2009. dated 03.0.1..013 and thereby seekin q for enhancement of compensation.

3. The anpe llant herein is the petitioner, respondent No. 1 herein is resp ondent no- I -orvner ol the crime vehi:le and respondent t-1c.2 herein 1S respondent no.2-insurance (ompany before the '['rrtrunal. For convenience, the parties ha,re been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 4 The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as urrder

4.1. On 23.1)',' 2OO7, whllle the petitioner was travelling in Auto bearing registl ation No.AP-27-W- 1063 (hereinafter rcferred to 2 LNA,J MACMA No-125 of 2015 crime vehicle) from Thungaturthy to Nakrekal and when they reached the outskirts of Korlapahad, the driver of the auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and the auto turned turlle and as a result, petitioner sustained serious injuries along with other inmates. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Nakrekal and later, shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. Thereafter, petitioner took treatment in NIMS and Yashoda Hospital and again in Government Hospital, where his left leg ankle was amputated' Later, in a private hospital at Suryapet, the doctors amputated his leg upto knee due to serious injuries sustained in the accident'

4.2. The Police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle and later filed charge sheet uide CC No'452 of 2O07 on the file of JFCM, Nakrekal.

4.3. It is contended that petitioner was aged 21 years' ha'le and health, and was earning Rs-4,O00/- per month as Male Nurse on ContractbasisinGovernmentHospitalAreaHospital,Nakrepal and contributing the same to his family; that he incurred an amount of Rs.1,O0,0OO/- towards treatment, that due to accident' 3 LNA,) MACMA N 126 of 2015 he was perman( rrtly disabled and he is unable to do any rvr rk and lost his source: of income for the remaining part of the life

4.4. It is furthr:r contended that the accident occurrcd due to rash and neglig:nt driving by the driver of crime vehicle and therefore, the f)(]titioner sought compensation of Rs.7.0(,0OO/- along with int(:rcst against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

5. The res;:,ondent No. 1-owner of the crime vehicle rernained ex parte. The rr::;pondent No.2-insurance companv f-rlecl c oun'ter denyrng the nar'.rtiol'l of the petitioner with respect to thc r ranner of occurrence ol accident, the age, income and a',,ocation of the petitioner anrl lurther contended that there is no negligence on the part of the dri.,e: of crime vehicle, aI-td that driver of the auto was not having valirl cLriving license and therefore, Insurance Cornpany is not liable to 1ral' any compensation and finally, praycd to d ismiss the claim petition

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has fram:d the following issr-te.r: 1) Whethe r the claimant sustained injuries due tc rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP 27 w 106:i 2 I 4 LNA,J MACMA No-126 ol2015 2) Whether the claimant is entitled lor compensation, if so. to what amount and lrom whom ? 3) To what relieP In order to substantiate lhe case, on behalf of the petitioner' 7. P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examincd and Exs Al to A6 were marked' On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however' copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex'B l '

8. The Tribunal, on duc consideration of the materid Lnd evidence placed on record, camc to conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs 4,O6,200/- towards compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos'1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 6ok p a' from the date of the petition till the date of rea'lization The Tribunal further directed |ne 2"d respondent to deposit the said amount within two months from the datc of the order' g. During the course of hearing of the appeal' learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed in view of grievous injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner; that Tribunal ought to have LNI ] nlAaMA N. 126 at 20' 5 5 considered that petitic,ner was in hospital more than two ]rears fo r treatmentandthesiilne\vasnotconsideredbytheTribunal:anl alsothedisabilitvol-6ii%asperEx.A6disabilitycertificateissLtcl by the Medical Boar,1 irL assessing the just compensation Hou'evel ' the Tribunal errecl itr a\varding meager amounts towards illjuric: pain and suffering, al tendant charges elc and hnally' prayecl lcr ' enhancement of contPensation.

10. In support of t]r(l contention, learned counsel for petition( r placed reliance on L:lc decision ol the Hon'ble Apex e ou rr i r Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance company Limited and anotherl I 1 . The learnecl c,11r nsel for the respondent insurance comprrr -v submittecl that the'l'rillunal had rightly awarded thc compensaticn towards injuries s r-lstained by the petitioner and the grounci s raised by the petitirln,:r are untenable and no case is made otrt warranting interferr:nce by this Court with the impugned arvar d passed by the Tribu:ril. and prayed for dismissal of the appeal Consideration: ' rgOU ltl SCC llg -':':- :,1 \ LNA,J MACMA No 126 oJ 2015 6

12. There is no dispute with regard to the income of the petitioner. Therefore, since the age of the petitioner is below 40 years and a self-employed, 40% ol the income has to be added to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2. Thus, the total income of the appellant would come to Rs.5,600/ - (Rs.a,000/ - + 1600 / -) per month.

13. With regard to other contention of learned .or.r", ,o. appellalt/petitioner that Tribunal failed to award compensation towards 657o permanent disability, it is pertinent to note that on beha-lf of the petitioner, P.W.2-Dr.Gangasani Venkataramana Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon was examined and according to him, arnputation was done initially upto ankle and later, it was upto knee level, which leads to permanent disability. According to the evidence of P.W.3-Dr.l.Kameshwar, who is the Civil surgeon and Orthopedic Surgeon and the Member of District Medical Board, petitioner sustained 657o permanent disability and to that effect, he issued Ex.A6-disability certificate. Though they were cross- (2&7) l6 scc 680 .l 7 LNA,J MACMA No.116 oJ 2AlS 5- examined, notL.Ir[i was elicited to discard their evidence Furlher' in Ex.A2-charg,: sJreet, it was specihcally mentioned that operalion was conducte cl <rr:, 25 07.2007 and upto the left leg ankl:' the removal was rltlne by the Medical Officers Later, amputatio 1 was done upto kt-re,: e vel in the year 2009, which is evidcnt lro m the evidence of P.\Ar.3. However, the Tribunal had not prlperly considerecl the :viclence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to the disability sustaired by the petitioner and awarded 30% disebility onl1, and thercfore. the same needs consideration'

14. In Jagdish v. Mohan and others3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under: '8. ln assessing thc compensation payable. the settled principLes need r.o bt lrcrne in mind. A victim who suffers a perlnanenl ol temporarl' cirabilitY occasioned by an accident is entitled to lh€ award of cofirpensation. The award of compensation must co"'el among otr-e r,. the followrng aspects: (4 Pain. srifle.ing and trauma resulting from the accident: (ir) Loss o-ilrcomc including fufr)re income: (iir) The iDalrititv of the victim to lead a normal life together lvill rts amel-ri,re i (iu) Medi<:al expenses inctuding those that the victim maY lx requir-ed t,r ,rndertake io future; and (u) Loss oi r:xrectation of life ' lo18 (l) Al-u -ii (1j( LNA,) MACMA No.126of 2015 h 8

9. Io Lqxman v. Oiental Insurqnce Co. Ltd. lLaxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., |.2011) 1O SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1O95 : (2012) l SCC (Cri) 108 : (2011) 12 Scale 658i , this Court held : ISCC p. 762, para 15) " 15. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permalent or temporal/ disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the parn, suffenng and trauma caused due to thc accrdent, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident." 1O. In K. Suresh v. Neut India Assurance Co. Ltd. lK. Suresh tt. NeLU India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2ol2l 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Cwl 279 : (2ol3l 4 SCC (Cri) 6381 , this Court adverted to the . earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandid v. Randhir Singh lRamesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh" (1990) 3 SCC 723 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 512] and B. Kothandapani v. 't. N. STC Ltd. IB. Kothonddpanl v. T.N. STC Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 42O : \2OII) 3 SCC (Crv) 343 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 10021. The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the hrst head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himseli lL. In Gouind Yadau v New India Insurance Co. Ltd. IGound Yqdav v. New Indi<t Insu.ance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Crv) 1082 : l2o12l t SCC (Cril 82 : (2o12) I SCC (l-&,Sl 4221 , this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995J 1 SCC 55f : 1995 SCC (Cri) 2501 , Nizamb Institute of Medical Sciences v. Pro-santh S. Dhananka lNizam's Institute of Medtcal Sciences v. Prasonth S. Dhanankq, (2009) 6 SCC I : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 6881 Reshma Kumtln v. Madon Mohan lReshma Kumart v. Maden Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 | \2OO9l 5 SCC (Civ) 1a3 : (2OlOl I SCC (Cri) lO44l , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. Neut India Assurqnce Co. Ltd. IAruind Kumdr Mishra v. New Ind.ia Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 12581 , and Rai Kumar v. Ajag Kumar lRaj Kumar v. Ajag Kumar, (2011) I SCC 3a3 | QOll) 1 SCC (Crv) 164 : l2O11l 1 SCC (Cri) 11611 and held thus : (GoLrind Yodau case [Gownd Yadau tt. Neu lndia Insurance Co. Ltd.,l21l1) 10 SCC 6a3 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) toa2 | l2ot2) I SCC (Cri) a2 | l2ot2) 1 SCC (L&S) 4221 , SCC p. 693, pa-ra 18) 9 LNA,J MACMA ta_12tj af 2015 '' 7 8- Ir our view, the principles lald down in Arund Kurnar lL/Lslr.d \. \'eu LTdta Assurance Co. Ltd lAruind KunLar ]tfushra v \e\, h:d,a ]-ss&mnce Co. Ltd., (2OtOl I0 SCC 254 : (20101 4 S.C tclv) I r I : i20I0) 3 SCC (Cn) I 2581 and Raj Kuma|r .A.t.L!l I SCC 343 : (2011l I Ktlnier lt<aj Kumer v. AJaA Kumar, l2]lll :jCC 1('\') 164 : (2011) I SCC (Cri) I 161l musr be follow,ed by a1t the-lri)rrnals arld the High Courts in detcrmining fhe ouanrur. oI compensation payable to the victims oI accidenl. !r,ho at-e djsal)lel cither permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the ilcci(lir t suffers permanent disabillty, then efforts should alq.arvs lr, r ..1, u awJrd adequale ,ompensalion not on.! tur .;F phvslaaIrntury and treatment, but also for the loss ol carnlng a ld is lnarbrlLty to lead a normal life and enloy amenittes, $hiah hr: r\oul(l have enjo)ed but lor rhe disabthty caused due ro Lhe These prrr ciples were reiterated in a judgment of this Court rn Subttlexrnt .. 7]M SIC lSubulaxmi v. ?.1{. Src, (2012) 10 SCC 177 : (21)t 2 .+ SCC (Civ) I lO0 : (2013) I SCC (Cri) IIdeliveredtry one of usi. Jusricc Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief JrLstice th( n \l'als). "

15. In Sidram (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as unrler "113. Befor e r(.e close this matter, tt needs to be underlinc<l. z.s observecl i Pappu Deo Yadau fpappu Deo yadau y. Naresh Kutnor. l'.2O 22) 13 SCC 790:2020 SCC OnLrne SC 752) thz t courts s-o.rld be mindlul that a serious injun, not only permanelril. rnrposes phvsrcal limttations and disabihties buL to) often infli(:t:r deep mental arld emotional scars upon the vic tifi . The atten(la r t trauma of the victim's having to live in a worlrl entireh drff]lent from the one she or he is born tnto. as ar invalirl. atrc \\1[lt degrees of dependence on others, robber] cf completr. I)erionai choice or autonomy, should forever be tn th: Judge s rr.nC. $henever tasked to adjudge compensation clatms. Severe linrira ions inflicted due to such injunes undermine th,r dignih' (rvrr< LL is nou. recognized as an intrinsic component of th(. . nght ro lilr under -{rricle 21) of the rndividual, thus depriving thr \ person of hr' :ssence of the right to a wholesome life whrch she o he had livct , hitherto. From the rvorld of the able boclred rht 10 LN4] MACMA No.126of2015 victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting al1d unsettling. If courts nit pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstarces, there rs resultant affront to the injured victim. (See Pappu Deo Yadau lPappu Deo Yadau v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) L3 SCC 79O : 2O2O SCC OnLine SC 7521).'

16. [n view of the above discussion, material and evidence on record, and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, the injuries sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioner to the extent of 65% has to be taken into consideration while computing compensation.

17. This Court assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.67,200/- per annum (Rs.5,600/- x 12). Thus, the loss of earnings due to the disability would be 65ak of Rs.67,20O/-, which comes to Rs.43,68O/- per annum. As the age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was 21 years, the proper multiplier would be '18'. Therefore, the loss of future earnings due to disability would be Rs.7 ,a6,2aO l- (Rs.a3,68O/- x 18). Further, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5o/o per arnum as against 6%0 awarded by the Tribunal 1L LNA') MACM \ Na.126 ol2015

18. The c,,her contentions raised by the learned co rnsel for appellan t/ ll(: titioncr with regard to awarding of compcn:ration on other counl s, neecls no interference by this Court s;ince the Tribunal had rightly assessed and awarded the amount on each Conclusion:

19. In vicv, ol the above discussion, the compensation atlount is recalculated rt :; Llnder: SI.No. Head CoEpeDsatior awarded t , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 l.oss of dr sa:i iL tv Inj u r Le.; earnings due to Rs,.7,46,2401 - Rs. 28,OOO/- (Rs.2o,ooo/ r sooo/,) Medrr:al expenses l,oss rf carnings Atterld;1nt charges Extrii Fcurlshment Trans p,): tation Rs.75,OOO/- Rs. 3O,OOO/- Rs. 6,0o0 l - Rs. 5,OOO/- Rs. 3,OOO/- Total compensation to be Rs.9,33,240l- ,.9. In thc r(rsult. Appeal is partly allowed arrd the in Lpugned award passe d lt v' the Tribunal insofar aS compensation ar::rount is concerned, is, rrodified enhancing the compensation amoL nt from 0 t 12 LNA,,! MACMA No.126 of 2015 Rs.4,O6,2O0/- to Rs.9,33,24O/-, which shall carry interest at the rate 7.5Vo per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realizatton, subject to payment of court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant/ petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs' Pending miscellareous applications if any sha1l stand closed' Sd/- L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional Districl Judge at Nalgonda.(with records, if any)

2. G.Anjaneyulu S/o. Guravaiah, Rl/o. Yamparala Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District (Owner of the Auto bearing AP-27-W1063)

3. One CC to Sri N. Mukund Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri S. Agastya Sharma, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies VH/DL HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.126 of 2015 s1A ) \1 \ti, 1 ':l PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS I ,A)A IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 126 0F 2015 Between: Valadas Somaiah @ Somulu S/o. lddaiah, Age 27 years, Occ: Male Nursing in Govt. Area Hospital, Nakrekal R:/o. Nakrekal Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. G.Anjaneyulu S/o. Guravaiah, Age 37 years, Rl/o. Yamparala Village, Addanki Mandal, Prakasam District (Owner of the Auto bearing AP-27-W1063)

2. National lnsurance Company Limited, Divisional Office: Regency House, Somajiguda Hyderabad. (Policy No. 55040213110616300006793, valid From 14-3-2007 to 1 3-3-2008) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of MV Act against the order and decree dated 03-04-2013 in MVOP NO. 704 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Mukunda Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and Sri S. Agastya Sharma, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 either in person or by Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,06,200^ to Rs. 9,33,240l_, which shall carry interest at the rute 7.5"A pe- annum from the date of claim petilion till the date of realization, subject to pavment of court fee on the enhanced compensattor amount; 2 That the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the d;,rte of receipt of copy of th s oder after adjusting the amount, if any, already deDosited;

3. That on such deposit, the appelanupetitioner is entifled to wifl-draw the entire compensaliorr amount;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/.L, VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTNA'I' REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// 't)'tl;"r,o* orrrcen The chairnran, Motor Accidents craims Tribunar-cum-r Adcitionar District Judge at Nalgonda. Two CD Copies To, VH HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.126 of 2015 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS