The High Court · 2025

2. Sri SaiTraders, through registered owner Kyatham Subhash, rs/o. Kyatham Sai Reddy, Hindu, Age. 45 years, Occ. Owner of Ashok Leyland MiniVan bearing No. TS-21-T4517, R/o. Anthergoan Village of Jagtial,Mandal, District Jagtial.

3. Reliance General lnsurance Co. Ltd, through its Branch Manqger, Policy issuing office at 3rd Floor, Kyasa Towers, Court Chowrastha, Karimnagar - 505 001 (vide insurance policy certificate No.992491923350001841, valid from 17.03.2020 to 16.03.2024) ...Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 3 in MVQP No.44 of 2O21 Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. A.V.K.S.P.rasad Counselfor the Respondentsl&2: Sri Baddam Hemanth Reddy Counsel for the Respondents3: Sri KondadiAjay Kumar The Court made the following: JUDGMENT I'HT IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. L437 of 2ol23 JIIDGMENTl Heard Sri A.V.i(.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri Baddam Hemanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondt:nt Nos.l and 2 and, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned standing counsel for respondent No.3/Insur€tnce company and

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellantlclairnant aggfieved hf the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Cl.aims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge at Jagtial (for short the Tribunal) in M.v.o.P.No.44 of 2o2L, dated 22.Og.2O23, wherein, an amount of Rs.4,28,7091- urith interest at T.So/o per arlnum was awarded in a claim petition filed seeking el^l compensation of Rs.15,OO,OOO/- on account of injuries sustained by the appeltant in a road traffic accident

3. The appellant sustained injuries in an accident tl:at occurred on21.03.20120 at 1.35 p.m when he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.'lS-2l-F-7741 to go to Jagtial. When the motorcycle reached A.R.Function hall, it was struck by Ashok Leyland mini I \' 2 van bearing No.TS-21-T-4517 from backside having been driven in rash and negligent manner with high speed. 4 The appellant sustained injuries consisting of Grade III B compound fracture of the lower third tibia media malledlus, T)rpe Il fracture with S.T.Extension and Hypovolemic shock. There was evidence through PW2, an Orthopedic Surgeon to show that the appeltant sustained disability of 2Oo/o to 3Oo/o.

5. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the appellant through PWl to PW3 and Exs.Pl to P14, the Tribu+al awarded compensation of Rs.4,2 8,7Og l- with interest at 7.5o/o Per annum, leading to filing of the present appeal.

6. In grounds of appeal, primarily, it is pleaded that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2, an Orthopedic Surgeon who deposed that the appellant sustained disability of 2Oo/o to 3Oo/o and has restricted movement due to malunion of hip joint, that he underwent surgery and had to take bed rest for six months. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.54,O0O/- under the head of loss of earnings and the salne is unjustified according to tt4e appellant. Hence, it is prayed that the compensation awarded be gnhanced. 1 \ / 3

7. The Tribunal has taken the notional income of the appellant at Rs.9,OOO/- per month. In the absence of evidence that he was running Madina chicken Centre before he met with the accident, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the said finding of awarding Rs.54,OOO/- towards loss of income during the six months time period taken for healing of wounds and resuming normal worl:.

8. The appellant suffered two grievous injuries- Ttrerefore, Rs.SO,OOO/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. No interference is made vrith the compensation awarded towards medical expenditure at Rs.3,19,709 l-, extra nourishment at Rs.10,OO0/- and transport charges at Rs.S,OOO/-. g. The Tribunal while considering the disability sustained by the appellant, instead of using the formula set out in the case of Sarla Verme v. Delhl Transport Corporation t and the future prospects as per National Insuraace Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi aad others2, has awarded lumpsum amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- which is meagre. Furlher, when there is evidence of treated doctor that ttre 5 S.C.C. 121 7 (6) 170 (sc) 4 appellant sustained disability at 2Oo/o to 3O7o, the same needs to be considered.. The functional disability is also taken et 2Oo/o to quantiff the compensation towards loss of future eafnings. The appellant was aged 24 years at the time of accident as per police record marked Ex.Pl/FIR, Ex.P2/Charge sheet and Ex.P3/Medico legal certificate. As per age and income of deceased, rf 4ooh of the income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in pranay sethi 12 supraf , the annual income would be Rs.1,st,2}Ol- (Rs.9,OOO/-x 12 + 3,600/-). As per ttre Auttrority in Sarla Verma (1 supra|, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier of '18', the loss of future earhings of the appellant due to disability at 2oo/o is Rs.5,44 ,32O I - (Rg. 1,5 L,}OO / - x 18 x 20/ 1oo). In all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.9rb3, o2p.l -.

10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enilanced from Rs.4,28,7Ogl- to Rs.9,83,029/-, which shall carrJr interest at 9o/o per annum on the enhanced amount frorn the date oflrpetition till the date of realization. Respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this ) ) 5 , , judgment. ()n such deposit, tJle appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire a:nount without furnishing the security. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. SD'- A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge' at Jagrtial.(with records if anY)

2. OneCO to SRl. A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One C0 to SRl. Baddam Hemanth Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4. One CC to SRI Kondadi Ajay Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies JAlPSLw 4 STATE 1 (J ? 1 lrN Nlt t * HIGH COUFIT DATED:141A'812025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1437 of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. ISI PARTLY ALLOWED \ .p{"L X@ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENIY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA Between: Mohammad lrfan, S/o. Mohammad Muzeeb, Muslim, Age,24 years, Occ. chicken centre Business, R/o. Thakkallapally Village, Kathlafur Mandar, District Jagtial. ...AppellanUPetitioner in MVOP No.44 of 2021 AND

1. Shaik Shekeer, S/o. Kareem, Muslim, Age. 34 years,Occ. Driver of Ashok .L.gyla nd M in i Van beaqing llp, f9-? t -\ 1517, R/o. Tarakarpmanag ar Village of Jagtial Mandal, District. Jagtial.

2. Sri SaiTraders, through registered owner Kyatham Subhash, S/o. [-ya.tham Sai Reddy, U!du, Age. 45 yeats, Occ. Owner of Ashok Leyland Mini Van bearing No. TS-21-T4517, Rl/o. Anthergoan Village of Jagtial Mandal, District. Jagtial.

3. Reliance General lnsurance Co. !!d, through its Branch Mlnager, Policy is_s1ti1g offige at 3rd Floor, Kyasa Towers, Court Chowrastfra, Karimnaglr - 505 001 (vide insurance policy certificate No.992491923350001841, vitid from 17 .03.2020 to 16.03.2024) ...Respondents/Respondents No.1 to 3 in MVOP No.44 of 2021 Appeal u/s. 173 of Motor Vehictes Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.44 of 2021, datd22l09l2023 on ttrc file of the Court of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-Cum-Principa! District Judge, at Jagtial. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of ?PPgql, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the mate'rial papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant a1d of Sri Baddam Hemanth Reddy, learned counselfor iespondent Nosl and 2 and Sri KondadiAjay Kumar, learned standing counselfor respondent No.3. This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1. That ther MACMA be and hereby is allowed !.n apqrt; 2. ffrit in,: compensation awarded ny the Tribuna! is h.ergbl,enhanced from Ri.4,28,709/- io Rs.9,83,029/-whictr shafl carry !1t9re9t at 9o/o per annum on ine enfranced amount trom the date of petition till the date of realization; 3. tnit-tne, respondents shalt deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks 4. ihat on such deposid, the aifleilant is ent]tled to withdraw the entire amount 5. That there shall bl no order a-s to costs in this appeal. from the'date of receipt of copy of this Judgment; without furnishing the securitY; SD'. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR G //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lvtotor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Principal District Judge, at Jagtiral. (with records if anY)

2. One CC to SRl. A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. Baddam Hemanth Reddy, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two 0D Copies (v HIGH COURT DATED:14n8i2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1437 of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS I'AR'|LY ALLOWED. .,k I I lrt: I r.