High Court · 2025

'-1. i"l',*r,*=**-,:f -'"'"'f '[#s,5f 1. G.S. SURESH' Business' R/o Chabbaras Apartments' Somajiguda' Hyderabad - 500016 * D EN r s' RE s Po N D E Nr s ' i:t lrl**fl ,Tr'.'JiltT.9,%bbt' Counsel for the Appellant : SRI' JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the ResPondent No'1 : - counsel for the Responoent r'ro'z : sRl' N's' BHASKAR RAO ft. Co,tt made the following: JUDGMENT 6 -- r"" i+c nivisional Manager' #4-3-28111' Re p bv'" o..'lll'ro THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C. M.A.No.925 of 2O13 JUDGMENT: This M.A.C.M'A. is frled under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/ petitioner aggrieved by the Award arrd decree dated 17.01.2O13 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2058 of 2008 by the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') seeking compensation of Rs.2,06,338/- lor the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 29 'O3 '2OO7 '

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed M.V.o.P.No.334of20ir6underSectionl66(1)(a)oftheM.V.Act,1988 seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have been caused due to rash and negligent manner by the driver of the car on 29'03'2O07 at about 8'30 a'm'' the petitioner was going on scooter bearing No'AP 23 F 5683 as pillion rider to his agricultural field and '*'hen he reached national high way No'7 at Narsing Road towards Hyderabad side, one car bearing No'AP 9 BG 1158 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner came behind his 2 IIYR,J LIACNA lib.925 oI 2Ot3 scooter and dashed the same. Due to which the ridc. of t.e scooter ald petitioner fell dow'n and received murtiple injuries ar cl they were shifted to local hospita-l at Ramayampet, thereafter, they *,r:r . shifted to Gandhi Hosptial, Secunderabad and on the same Cay, th,r.. u,.crc shifted to a private hospital i.e., Heritage Hospital where he tL: s taken treatment from 29.O3.2007 to 1S.OS.2OO7 and incurred huge ,:;:penditure towards medical bills ald as such the petitioner has filed tlrr. M.V.O.p claiming compensation of Rs.2,06,33g/_.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the le;r,ed .lribunal that due to accicrent, the petitioner sustained i) Fra.t Lrre or left shaft of left femur (thigh bone), contusion on head and othr.r i,juries and also unde^vent surgicai operation for which the petitio,,:r had incurred an amount of Rs.67,838/- to,"vard s hospital and medi,.al expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.2,06,33g/_ under rarious heads as compensation for the said accident. 4 Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nr 2 - the National Insurance Compary filed their counter_affidavit. lenying all the averments made in the claim petition, including thc r rlarner in which 3 ]VI\IR,J rAcNA tb.925 or 2ot3 the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and and further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition' Respondent No' 1 adopted the counter hled by the respondent No'2'

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the parties' the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under:

1. "Whether the accident occurred on 29 .O3 '2OO7 at 8:30 pm, near Sankapur cross roads, Shankarampet, was due to the rash ald negligent driving of the motor car bearing No'AP 9 BG 1158, by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so' to what amount and from u'hom?

3. To what relieP

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by both the parties' the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of Rs.67,OOO/- along with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum' 4 ll G,J .aAcMA No.925 o! 2013 7 . Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the m(,a ger <:ompensation amount awardecl by the learned Tribunal, the presen - appr:al is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learned Trbunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negii ]en.r (iriving of the driver of the car, however not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. The petiticner examined I,\,,s. I & 2 and filed documents marked as Exs.Ai tc Ai 1 and proved tlii,t he has received grievous injuties due to the accirieni. B. Learned counsel for the oetitioner further ccntt,nded that as the petitioner has suffered fracture tc his left fernur, ht. r'as ,nable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable t. lift weights, drive t'ro whee:ler and also contended that, the iearned rribunar without takirrg rnto cc.sideration of all the aspects has av,zarded an amount of Rs.(rl .O0O,r-, u,hich is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation r,nd so also under other heads.

9. Learned counsel for- the petiticner further c()r tendod that the learned Tribunal ought to have awardeci an amoun. cf' Rs. 15,OO0/ - towards loss of earning, but the learned Tribunal ar,va r led a, amount of \ _.* 5 NNR'J t^cxA lto.92s of 2or3 Rs.9,000/-andalsonotawardedjustcompensationunderotherheads i.e., transport charges and awarded RS.67,OOO/- in total, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, u'hich needs no interference' I l. Heard llfr.Kas lreddg Jagathpal Reddg, learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner and .llfr. N. S. B horskar Roro , learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the material on record'

12. Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident. The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation' if so' to uhat ertent? Point o-l 13. Admittedly, the present appeal is Frled by the appellant/claimant having been unsatislied with the compensation awarded by the learned 6 , I,^E,J MACMA ,{0.925 of 2073 Tribunal i.e., Rs.67,000/- as against the claim of th: :rppellant/claimarrt i.e., Rs.2,06,33ti/-. Admittedly, there is no dispute r.garding the nature of accident a.d the involvement of the said car ar cr rherre is also no dispute u'ith the fact that the said vehicle was insur- rd wii.h respondent No 2' It is also not in dispute rhat the said accident r,r irs occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the r;: id cerr. The main grievance of the petitioner before this court is that t L r: lear.ned rribunal ought to have awa.rded considerable amount under th:. head of pain and sufferance as the peritioner has sustained head iniLrry along u,ith the injury to his thigh bone. The learned Tribunal awarrl,,d Rs.25,000/_ for the thigh bone injury and Rs.5,000/- for the head rrrjury. tt is nor in dispute that there was a head injury s,r ;taine.d by the petitionerT'claima nt. as such this court of the opini.r that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pi rin and sufferance for the head injury needs to be enhanced anci an arnc r nt cf Rs.25,0O0/_ for the said injury can be awarded in addition to th3 .rmornt u,hich is awarded in respect of the injury sustained on the th gh bone. Besides that, it is submitted by the petitioner that the petil i,ner l-rad been to various hospitals all through his treatment. Initially. rr. u'as admitted in 7 ll1{R'J MACUA No 925 ol 2013 goverrrment hospitat at Ramanapet and from there he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital and subsequently he was shifted to Heritage Hospital and the injury which is sustained by the petitioner being tc the leg i'e'' a thigh, obviously, the petitioner might have been shifted to vanous hospital by engaging some ambulance or any other four wheeler' In the said circumstances, the petitioner might have incurred some amounts for the said transportation' Considering the ground realities' I hold that awarding of Rs.4,OO0/- towards transportation appears to be meager sideandalramorrntofRs.l0,o00/-Canbeawardtowards transportation in place of Rs'4,00O/-'

14. It is also further contented that as per PW-2 and the records shows that the petitioner was being operated in respect of thigh bone for thefractureofleftshaftandleftfemurwithinterlockingnailingofleft femurfractureandaSperthepetitioner,herequiresfuturesurgeryfor the purpose of removal of said implants' No doubt' for removal of said implants, the petitioner has to incur some amount' Considering the same and also the ground realities' this court is of the opinion that an amount of Rs.20,OOO / - canbe awarded for the future treatment of the same and in respect 9[ the other charges this court if of the opinion that 8 the amounts which are awarded under reassessment or reconsideration. .AI]\'R,J ITACMA No.92S oJ 2Otg othr:r heads needs no

15. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, ma _erial on record and submissions made by both sides, this Court is of t.re opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensal.i,)n as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table belo..v lor easy reference. Head Am ount arrlved at by the Tribunal Arnr ,rint arrived at by :his Court ffersn heaC i Loss of earnr Transpgle tion Char Pain and Su borre arrd ce (thigh n u I-oss of inco rne I.'urure Treatment {Removai oi im lanLs Itledical aild Extra ir"cunshment Total Rs.9 oo0 oo0 Rs.25,OOO/- & Rs.5 000 Rs.9 oo0 Rs.2C,OO0/- Rs.67,Oo0/- I as.9,O0O s-1 o/- R R r.50,OOO/- 000 I s.9 R,;.3O,OOO/- R t.20,O0(l/ - Rs.1,28,OOO/- L6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part I ry enhancing the compensation from Rs.67,O00/- to Rs.1,28,OOO/- (Rupees One Lakh T\renty Eight rhousand onry! with the interes t of r.so/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date ( 9 lvIq,J TACUA No-925 oI2or3 of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety' There shall be no order as to costs 17 . Miscellaneous pe-titions, if any are pending, shall stand closcd SO/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR /,TRUE COPY/' ECTION OFFICER The file of the I Additional Metropolitan sessions Judge cum XV Additional Egbtg:.$ffiAffi [,"fr ['.?,"'^S]I5ffiJutj,o"*"ropucl To, 1 a 3 4. Two CD CoPtes GE/PSL Y\. HIGH COURT DATED:11/07/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.g25 of 2013 it.'. ),rAf " ir {lr:i ts6 r )l I 5 '.1) PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS G .e6nh IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 925 OF 2013 Between: P. PENTA REDDY, S/o Late P.Ram Reddy, Rl/ Complex, Sharam Kran Road, Ameerpet, Hydera o. H.No. 7-'1-78, Balaji Bhgyanagar d. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. G.S. SURESH, Business, R/o. Chabbaras Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500016

2. The National lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, #4-3-28111 , Bank Street, Hyderabad-500001. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal flted under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 17.01.2013 passed in OP No. 2058 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XV Additional Chief Judge, 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 argument of SRI KASI REDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate for the App6llant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1. That the Motor Accident Civit Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.67,000/- to Rs.1 ,28,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Only) with the interest of 7.5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. ./ I

3. That the respondents be and are hereby directed to d3r)osit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit t) the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from he date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

4. That on such deposit by the respondents, the petitiorer be and is hereby permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any srtrety.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itfrue Copyll SD/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR I \ SECTION OFFICER To

1. The I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cun XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. GE/PSL W HIGH COURT DATED:1110712025 DECREE MACMA.No.925 of 2013 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS .4("4 T-\ &.*