The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.18O5 OF 2()10 JUDGMENT: Aggrievr:d by the order and decree dated 25.08.20 10 (hereinafter u ill be referred as 'impugned ordei,) prissed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum XVI Additional Chief Judge - cum - II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (}-rereinafter will be referred as ,Tribunal,) in O.P.No. i 1 ot 20O8, the appellant, who is the petitioner/ claimanL before the lt'arned Tribunal, preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as thery were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record are as under: a) The petitioner Iiled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle: Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,OO,0OO/- against the Respondent Nos.1 arrd 2 for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident. The reason assigned by the petitioner for sustaining injuries is that on 2Z.Og.2OO7 at about

8.10 AM the petitioner (rider) and his brother (pillion rider) rvere 2 traveling on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 09 EV TR/ 6095 and in the meanwhile a Water Tanker bearing registration No.AP i 2 U 989 1 (hereinafter will be referred as 'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner with high speed came in opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the right wheel of the aid tanker ran over the rigfrt hand of the petitioner due to hich petitioner received fracture injuries to his right hand. ) A case in Crime No.331 of 2OO7 of Ramachandrapuram Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. c) The petitioner was shifted to Sai Durga Hospital, wherein he was given lirst aid and thereaftcr he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, wherein his right upper hand was amputated upto shoulder. The petitioner suffered immense pain due to the injuries of the amputation and he spent huge amounts for treatrnent, transportation and other instrumental expenses. d) The petitioner is a driver by profession and used to earn Rs.5,O00/- per month ald now he has become handicapped and disabled to drive any vehicle and thereby he is deprived of -.:=j+-.@ 3 his earnings. The petitioner is unmarried and thereby he lost his marriage prospects e) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of thc crimc vchicle by its driver and thus, the.petitioner claimed compensatiorr of Rs.5,0O,OO0/ from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who arc the ov/ner and insurer of the crime vchicie respectivcly

4. Belore rhe learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition averments, the respondent No.l remained exparte and rvhereas respondent No-2 filed counter denying the petition averments including thr: manner of the accident, nature of injuries, trealment and medical expenditure and contended that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the injured/ petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. In order to establish the claim before the learned Tribunat, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.Pl to P1O rvere marked on his behalf. On the other hand, no oral evidence was a<lduced on behalf of respondent No.2, hou'ever, Ex.BI copy ol the insurance policy was marked 4

6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and documentaqr evidence on record, passed the impugned order awarding Rs.3,3O,O0O/- as compensation to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record including the grounds ofAppeal.

8. It is to be seen that the respondent No.2/Insurance Company did not prefer arry Appeal to set aside the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the subsistence of Ex. B 1 insurance policy at the time of acciclent. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the learned Tribunal by re\ring on the evidence of pWl (injured) and documentary evidence under Exs.pl ar.ld, p2 i.e., certified copies of FIR and charge sheet, answered the issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver.

9. The hrst and foremost contention of the learned counsel fonlbe petitioners is that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the income of the petitioner at Rs. 15,OOO/ per annum as s.:::*ltft5E=t against the <;laim of the petitioner at Rs.S,OOO/- per month. It is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal failed to assess the disability though the court belou, accepted the amputation of right hand of the appellant upto shoulder which resulted in permanent disability and that the learned Tribunal failed to award any c:ompensation under the head of injuries

10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not hled any income proof to establish that he was drawing Rs.S,OOO/- per month as driver. The petitioner did not even file his driving license to prove that he is a professional driver. In the absence of any such material, ihe learned Tribunal considered noljonal income of Rs.15,OO0/- per annum. However, the notional income as arrived by tJ-re learned Tribunal is appearing to be on much lower si<le. Consider the year of the accident and since no income prool is filed by the peti[ioner, this Court is inclined to consider the monthly income at Rs.2,SOO/- pel month. A perusal of lhe claim petition discloses that it was filed in the year 2008, the petitioner claimed to be aged about 24 years. As can be seen irom trx.A2 charge sheet, the petitioner was alleged to be aged zrt-'out 22 years as on the date of accident. As per the 6 ,.-i decision in Sarta Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporationt th.e relevant multiplier for the person aged between 2l to 25 years is '18',. I I . The learned Tribunal by multiplying the annual income of Rs. i5,O0O/ with the multiplier '17' straight away awarded Rs.2,55,000/- without taking into consideration the disability.

12. The petitioner got examined the doctor, who has provided treatment to him as PW2. PW2 deposed that as per Ex.A6 the disability was issued by him with permanent disability at 9Ook. However, for amputation of the right hand up to the shoulder, the percentage of disability, as assessed against the entire body, is approximately 7O%o. Thus, the percentage of the disability u,ould come to Rs.3,78,O00/ (Rs.2,500 /- x 12 x 18 x 70%).

13. The other contenti.on of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding less amount of compensation under the head 'pain and suffering'.

14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,O00/- under the head 'pain and suffering'. The petitioner alleged to have sustained crush injury to his right hand. Hence, the learned Tribunai awarded Rs.2O,000/ - towards permanent disabili$. Hence, ' 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) l I I I I i I i i :"F-F=F7 7 MCPJ considering r-he year of the accident and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the compensation amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000/ + Rs.20,0OO/-) awarded by the learned Tribunal for:he injuries sustained by the petitioner is appearing to be just anrl reasonable

15. The leerrned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount for medicai expenditure, transportation and other incidental charges.

16. As seen from the petition averments, the petitioner claimed an alnol-lnt of Rs.65,OO0/- towards medical and nursing expenses and relied upon Ex.p7. However, a perusal of Ex.p7 discioses theLt the petitioner incurred Rs.3g,09g/_ tor.r.ards medical expcnscs. Thcre is no other documentary evidence to establish thzit the petitioner has incurred more thal the compensatior_. awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head 'medical expenses'. Accordingly, Lhe learned Tribunal rounded off Rs.38,O98 /-mentioned in trx.p7 to Rs.4O,OO0/- and awarded the same under the head 'medical expenses,. Thus, this Court is not ir-rclint:d to interfere with the frndings of the learned Tribunal so fitr as the compensation awarded under the head 'medical expenses'. I a a

17. It is to be seen that as per the claim petition, the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.5,O00/- towards transportation charges. Apart from that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.S,OOO/ towards extra nourishment. Since the learned Tribunal awarded the compensation amount as sought by the petitioner under transportation charges, the above contention of the learned counsel for the pet'rtioner is untenable.

18. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation under the head 'attendant charges'. Since the petitioner sustained crush injuries, he requires an attendant to discharge his day to day activities during his bed ridden period. Hence, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,OO0/- towards attendant charges.

19. Hencc, in view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed by the lcarned Tribunal is liable to be modified to the extent of above obscrvations.

20. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,3O,OOO/- to Rs.4,58,OO0/ , which shall carry interest @ 7.5Vo per annum from the date of 'petition tili the date of realization. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 '.r.qa:'.' :;.:€ 9 a l intly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this ludgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is er-rtitled to \\,ithdraw the entire compensation amount awarded to him u,ithout furnishing any securit5r. There shall be no order as to costs Mrscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed To, //TRUE COPYII SD/-AVSPRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR 1 The Chairman, I\ilotor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( Addl Chief Judge cum ll Additional DistricUMetropolitan Judge) at H v erabad. (with records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. V ATCHUTA RAM Advocate tOpUCj 3. One CC to SRt A V K S PRASAD Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies oi(r- GSA HIGH COURT DATED:2510812010 JUDGEMENT MACMA.No.1805 of 2010 ", :: ;: q-Ai-,; .:':-. ^-t\',:." ,:' " \ (-,A ,\i. , .r\", .',, \ t\st9 N6 .1 a-r I C,

4., ,l n'-rl ._:::_tir PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS VL J{d,r [ 3253 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1805 OF 2010 Between: tvlarepally Chandrasekhar, S/o Ramadasu Lorry Driver (Now Unemployed) Rlo.11-1-6312, Zinkalawada, Opp. Sanathnagar Railway Station, Hyderabad ...APPELLANT AND

1. M. Krishna, S/o Manjulryal Maiath t\ilajor, Business R/o H.No. 19-1-445, Bhadurpura, Hyderabad

2. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Regional Manager, United lndia Towers Basheerbagh, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19BB against the Order and decree in tr/.V.O.P.No.11 oI 2OO8 dated. 2510812010 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Nlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum (XVl Addl Chief Judge cum ll Additional DistricUMetropolitan Judge) at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the TVVOP and upon hearing the arguments of MR SRl. V ATCHUTA RAII/, Advocate for the Appellahts and NONE APPERAED, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and SRI AVKS PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 .That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous appeal be and hereby is partly partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,3O,OOO/ - to Rs.4,58,OOO/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.S'yo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

2.That The re sponclent Nos. 1 and 2 ark jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation amount u.ithin a period ol one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amolrnt awarded to him u'it hout furnishing any security. 3 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other respects; and

4.That there be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// SD/-AVSPRASAD EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, lVlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl Chief Judge cum Additional District/l\,4etro polita n Judge) at Hyderabad.

2.Two CD Copies (fi HIGH COURT DATED:2610312025 DECREE MACMA.No.1805 of 2010 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 8A, .- ffiV'