The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Respondents No.1 and 2 : SRI BADDAM HEMANTH REDDY Counsel for the Respondents No.3 : SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: JUDGMENT u-:g!!G.Er, THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENIiT 1\ \'ARA M.A.C.M.A.No.1442 of 2023 JUDGMENT: Heard Sli A.V.K.S.Prasad. learned counsel lirr lrc appcllant; Sri Baddarn Hemanth Reddy, learncd counsel tbr rcspondct i, Nos. I and 2 and Sri Kondadi Ajal' Kurnar, lcarned coLtuscl lbt rcspon<lt r t N,r.3. Peluse d the entire record

2. l'his is an appeal pref'crred b1, the appellanti petitit rrcr aggrieved by the order of the leamed Chairman. Motol Accidents Cla r rs I ribunal-curn- Principal District Judgc at Jagtial in IvI.V.O.P.No.-lt) ol 1021, dated

22.09.2023, whercin an anlount ol l1s.5,43,397l- was r ', ardcd in a clairn petition filed clairning compensation of Rs. 15,00,00( r on account of injuries sustained by him in a road trafflc accidcut

3. The brief facts of the case arc that the appellant nr(: with an accident on 21.03.2O20. The appellant rvas travelling along \\ tr onc person by name Mohammad Irfan on motorcycle bearing No.l S 2l ) 7711 to attend a marriage ceremony. When they reached A.R.Function i t ll at about 0l:35 PM, one Ashok Leyland Mini Van bearing No.TS 21 1' 4517 came from back side in high speed in rash and negligent manner anrl dashed the motorcycle causing the fall of the appellant resulting irr injuries. In that context, the claim petition was filed seeking ; rnrpcnsation of RY.J MACMA 1442 2023 Rs. 15,00,000/- jointly and severally from respondent No.l-drivet, respondent No.2-owner and rcspondent No.3- insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The appellant got cxanrined P.Ws.1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.P-l to P- 30 and Exs.C-1 to C-3. Respondent No.3 got exhibited Lx.R-l i.e., copy of thc insurance policy. [Jpon exarnining the cvidcnce adduced by the appellant, the Tribunal passed the impugned award leading to filing of the present appeal

5. There is no dispute uith respect to occurrence of the accident or liability to pay compensation. 'l-he only challenge mounted is with respect to the quantum of the conlpensation awarded by thc Tribunal. More particularly, it is pleaded that the evidencc ol P.W.2 i.e., Dr. Bangari Swamy, who deposed about the percentage ol the disability aL 40Yo, was not considered by the 1'ribunal lor assessing the loss of earning capacity Further, the appellant sustained five injuries and underwent surgery and there is restricted movement of right elbow and wrist joint and also painful right knee joint as there is fiacture of Patella. However, instead of, considering the disabitity at 40o/o, the Tribunal only granted a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the appellant under the head ol disability. Further, no amounts were awarded towards physiotherapy treatment of the appellant, 2 Fffi J, ,/,/ RY..I ) L\C\IA 1142 2023 though P.W.3 dcposed about the physiotherapy given tr ilre appellant fbr about five months at cost of Rs.37,500/-. Lastly, no an , unts are awarded towards remo,"'al ol'irnplants, altendant charges and los:r . 'arrcnities br the ll'ibunal.

6. During the arguments in the present appeal, it is : nplrasized b1,the leamed counscl lirr the appellant that there is failur L to consider the disability and thcrefore, the compensation arlardcd is rr.rdcqr.rate_ White learned counscl tbr the respondents claim that r rc contpcrrsation awarded by the 'l libunal is just and reasonable I . As per the records, the evidence ol P. W.2-Dr. Barr r rri Sw,arny shows that he is a practicing orthopedic surgeon since 2002 at l.cncc lJospital at Karirnnagar and that he treated the appellant, who sulir-c:d iniurics in a road traft'ic accident. According to P.W.2, the appt:il ,rrt su fl'ered llve grievous injuries. Ihe percentage of disabiliry is about 1 ),% and the same is due to painful right forearm with restricted movement r r .runri right elbou, and wrist joint and right knee joint is painful due to or1 roriru of parella. The Tribunal refcrred to the evidence of P.W.2. but d i<l rrot consider the percentage of disability as there was no disability ceftillr rre issued b1, the medical board. \ 3 RY.J tvfACMA 1442 2023

8. In the absence ofa disability cerlificate, on the basis oforal evidence ol P.W.2, the Tribunal considered the rlonthly incomc of the appellant and awarded Rs.30,0001 under the hcad disability. l-he reasons stated by the Tribunal are based on sound reasoning and therefore, need not be interfered

9. Coming to the aspecr of pain and suffering, the appellant has suftbred flve grievous injuries and therefore, as per the stalute the appellant is entitled for payment of Rs.l ,15,0001- towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.25,000/- granted by the tribunal. On the basis of rnedical bills marked by the appellant, an arnount of Rs.4,19,397l- is awarded by the Tribunal under the head medical expenses and the same need not be interfered with. The arnount of Rs. 10,000/- awarded towards extra nourishment is increased to Rs.25,000/- and transportation charges are increased from Rs.5,000/- to Rs. I 0,000/-

10. The appellant got exarnined P.W.3 to prove that he was given physiotherapy. P.W.3 deposed that he issued Ex.P-26 by collecting an amount of Rs.37,500/- from the appellant towards physiotherapy administered to him. Therefore, an amount of Rs.37,500/- is awarded to the appellant towards physiotherapy charges 4 I I I I i' I I I I I I RY,J 4ACMA 1442 2023 1 l. In total the amount of compensation is calculr.r :d as Rs.30,000/- torvards disability, Rs.1,25,000/- towards pain and s11lfi: ing, Rs.4,19,397l- towards rnedical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards r.; tra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- torvards transportation charges and I{; 17,500/- towards physiotherapy charges, which comes to Rs.6,46,897/-

12. In tl.re result. M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed anil the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced f,r,,r Rs.-5,43,397l- to Rs.6,46,897/- with interest at 9o/o p.a. from rhe date ol' r) ,tition till the date of realization payable by the respondents jointly and sc., ra[[y. On deposit of tl-re enhanced compensation, the appellant is pcrmi:t: I to u,ithdrau. thc entire amount, r,n,ithout fumishing any security. There sl- rll be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this ppeal, shall stand closed \ To SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL t EPUTY REGISTRAR -"7- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal- cum- principal Dir trict Judge, at Jagtial.

2. One CC to SRt. A V K S PRASAD Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRt. BADDAM HEMANTH REDDY, Advocarr tOpUCl 4. One CC to SRt KONDADT AJAY KUMAR, Advocate [Ot, JC] 5. Two CD Copies cEtPSL ck(L -.Y.J *€* HIGH COURT DATED:05/0812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1442 of 2023 \ u STI.t.^.t .) O I 5 ilii ?uI z * S.3r:,r,,7 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSI S /Tta f lL 0b ,lr> \ \ril IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD 134421 TUESDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:1442 oF 2023 Between: Thota Chowdari, S/o. Thota Nadipi Lingaiah, Hindu, Age 45 years, Occ Agriculture and Pvt. Employee, R/o. Thakkallapally Village of Kathalapaur Manda[ District Jagtial ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER IN MVOP NO.4OI2021 AND 1 Shaik Shekeer, S/o. Kareem, Muslim, Age 34 years,Occ Driver of Ashok Leyland Mini Van Bearing No. TS- 21- T- 4517, R/o. Tarakaramanagar Village, Jagtial Mandal, District Jagtial. 2 Sri Sai Traders, Through registered owner Kyatham Subhash, S/o. Kyatham Sai Reddy, Hindu, Age 45 years, Occ: Owner of Ashok Leyland Mini Van bearing No. TS- 21- f - 4517, Rio. Anthergoan Village of Jagtial Mandal, District Jagtial. 3- Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd. ,, Through its Branch Manager, Policy issuing office at 3rd Floor, Kyasa Towers, Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar - 505001. (vide insurance policy certificate No. 992491923350001841 , valid from 17.03.2020 to 16. 03. 2024) ...RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3 IN MVOP NO.4O OF 2021 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, against the order and decree dated 22.09.2023 passed in O. P No. 40 ol 2021 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal- cum- Principal District Judge, at Jagtial. 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.V.K.S.PRASAD, Advocate for the Appellant and SRI BADDAM HEMANTH REDDY appeared for the Respondent No.1 AND 2, and SRI KONDADI AJAY KUMAR appeared for Respondent No.3. I This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 That the Motor Accident Civil A/iscellaneus Appeal b: and is hereby partty allowed. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribrri al be and is hereby hereby enhanced from Rs 5,43,397/- to Rs.6,46,897/- rv :h interest atgo/o p.i. from the date of petition titl the date of realization payat) ) by the respondents jointly and severally. That on deposit of the enhanced compensation by lre respondents, the appellant be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the r: rtire amount, without furnishing any security. 4 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appea . /tf rue Copyll SD/. MOHD.ISMAIL C I PUTY REGISTRAR \l ;ECTION OFFICER To 1 The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal- cum- principal Dist ict Judge, at Jagtial.

2. Two CD Copies GE/PSL LA!-. v HIGH COURT DATED:05/0812025 DECREE MACMA.No.1442 of 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSI S v\ tBt r o\ivt @