The High Court · 2025

E-O3O2. It is contended that on 30.04.2010, the petitioner being driver of the auto bearing No.AP-23-X-1511 along with 2 ronr, IACXA llo.26ot o:f Nr3 others were proceeding towards Kothirampur side slowly on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached near petrol pump, Kothirampur side and at that time one Hawestor vehicle bearing No.AP-15-AE-03O2 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction came on to its wrong side and dashed the auto of tl:e petitioner while overtaking another vehicle, due to which the petitioner as well as the inmates of the auto sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was taken to Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar and thereafter, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.50 of 2010 and hled charge sheet under Section 337 of IPC against the driver of the offending Harvestor vehicle.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner sustained i) fracture of right tibia middle 1/3'd, ii) fracture of right femur 3 IVIIR,J XACUA No.26Ol of 2Ot3 middle 1/3.d, iiil fracture of distal 1/3ra L.T.Radius, iv) U/3.a region of let emboLism and other injuries though out the body, out of which three injuries were grievous in nature and the petitioner susta.ined disability due to the said accident and he was admitted as an in-patient on O2.OS.2O10 wherein two operations were conducted for fracture of right thigh (shaft femur) and skin were closed with skin grafting and rods were inserted, for which the petitioner had incurred huge €unount tou,ards hospital and medical expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident.

4. Belore the learned Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 ou.ner of the Harvestor vehicle bearing No.Ap- l5_E-0302 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 The Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Company Limited filed their counter- affidavit, clen.l.ing a_ll the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and further 4 ,aa,J aAcEA lb-26o7 ol2013 contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition'

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the leamed Tribunal framed the following issues, which reads as under: 'i) Whether tle pleoded arcid.ent dt.3O-O4-2O1O l],irs ocqtne'd owing lo the rash and. negligent driuing of the diuer of the Uaistor bearing No.AP-15-AEO3O2 and tuhether the petitioner hos sustained iniuries in the said accident?

2. Wlrctler the CrimE Vehick No-AP-LS-AE O3O2 was owned bg tfe fitst respondent an-d ittsured uith seond respondent os on the-date ol ite wident snd whether the petitioner is enlitled for d so, to uhat quantum and uhat is the liabilitg of "o^p"rr"itiorr, tle respondents?

3. To wlnt relieJ?"

6. After perusing the oral and documentary evidence and going into the entire record arrd the evidence placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted compensation of fls'2'68,7951' along with interest @ 7Yo Pet annum. 7 . Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the meager compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the 5 rvl,4,J XAcxA I\b-26O, of 2Ol3 present appeal is hled on the ground arnong other grounds that the learned Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Harvestor vehicle, however, not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner On behalf of the appellalt, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A 1 to Al2 q,ere marked. On behalf of respondents no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.Bl copy of Insurance Policy u,as marked u,ith consent

8. Heard Sn Kasireddg Jagathpal Reddg, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kota Subba Rcro, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the materia_l on record. The onl1, point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that Whether the petitioner rb entttled for the enhanced competlsation, tf so, to Luhat extent? 6 xt{R,J MACEA lb-26o1of )r7

9. Admittedly, respondents have not frled 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.

10. The petitioner fi.rther averred that the petitioner was hale arrd healthy and was aged 22 years and earning Rs.S,OOO/- per month as driver as on the date of accident. The petitioner was admitted in Chalmeda Anand Rao Institute of Medical Sciences and from there to the Gandhi Hospital and he was discharged from the said hospital on 01.06.20 10. Learned counsel further argued that the petitioner sustained disability due to the said accident and two operations were conducted for fracture of right thigh (shaft femur) and skin u,ere closed with skin grafting and rods were inserted, due to which the petitioner was unable to do day-to-day affairs i.e., unable to lift heavy weights, drive auto to eke out his Iivelihood and also contended that petitioner has suflered 407o permanent disability, but the learned Tribunal rvithout 7 NNR,J l^crA ,b.26ol oI ?nt3 taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an arnount of Rs.2,68,795/-, which is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation and so also under other heads.

11. The petitioner further averred that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. Exs.A4 and A5 Discharge Summaries, clearly shows that petitioner sustained the following injuries: i) iE Fracture shafi of right femur. Fracture both bones ight leg. Fracture of distaL end of lefi radius. L2. The petitioner- further averred that the learned Tribunal ought to have considcred the earnings of the petitioner as Rs.B,OOO/- p.m. instead of Rs.4,500/- p.m. and physical disability as 10O% instead of 2Ooh. Learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.5,00O/ - towards Transportation to Hospitals, Rs.20,000/ - for extra-nourishment instead of Rs.2,000/-, Rs.1,00,0O0/- torvards Treatment and medical expense instead ot Rs.3,695/-, Rs.3O,OOO/- towards private 8 ru\4J XACYA lto.26o, ol2or3 attendant charges, Rs.2,OOO/- towards damage to clothing, Rs.4O,0O0/- towards loss of earning during treatment instead of Rs.4,5OO/-, Rs.SO,OOO/- towards compensation for pain & sufferings instead of Rs.75,000/-, Rs.75,OOO/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs.3O,OOO/- towards loss of marital life and Rs.1,48,000/- towards continrring & permanent disability' in total Rs.5,O0,OO0/- but the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,6a,795 /- and also not awarded just compensation.

13. The petitioner further averred that the Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that tle appellant was an auto driver and to that effect Ex.P9 License and also Registration Certificate were filed, thus, in all probabilities, the Tribunal below ought to have considered the income of the appellalt @ Rs.8,O0O/- per month, the Tribunal below erred in awarding Rs.25,O0O/ - to each fracture, which is on a lower side, the Tribunal below ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant sustained 4O% physical disability and the sarne was 9 rs.R,J EACEA,to.26ot ol ,3 confronted through the Doctor, who issued the said certificate, however, considered the disability at 2O%o, which is agarnst CAIIONS o[ law, the Tribunal below awarded very meagre amounts under different heads despite the fact that the Appellant sustained 4O% physical disability, the loss of earnings would be lO0% as the appellant cannot drive auto zrnymore to eke out his livelihood, the Tribunal below ought to have awarded interest @ ll to l2%o instead of 77o and ought to have awarded compensation even above Rs.5,OO,0OO/- as clairned by the Appellant, instead a'*,arded Rs.2,68r7951- in total, u,hich is meagre ald prays this Court to enhance the compensation arnount au,arded by the learned Tribunal.

14. l,earned counsel lor the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference. 10 /s4,J YACYA ,\b.26ol oJ 2Ot3 Point

15. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident caused on 30.04.2010. As per the evidence, the injuries suffered by the petitioner are grievous and simple injuries in nature, the Tribunal had granted Rs.7S,OOO/- under the head 'grieuous injuries', which appears to be meager. This Court enhances the compensation amount from Rs.75,OO0/- in all to Rs.I,6O,(X)O/- i.e., (Rs.75,0O0/-x 2=Rs.1,5O,OOO/- for two grievous injuries) (Rs. IO,OOO/-x l=Rs. 10,000/- for one simple injury) under the head 'pain and sulferance-grievous injuries'.

16. The petitioner claimed arr amount of Rs'4O'OOO/- towards ,loss of earning', which appear to be unreasonable and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs'4'SOO/-' which needs no interference by this Court. Further, the petitioner claimed an amount of Rs' I,O0,0OO/- towards treatment and medical expenses, but the Tribunal has not granted the said amount as the petitioner failed to produce the documents in support 11 J,6N,J EACUA ,6-260 t ol 2Or3 of his contention and relying on Ex.A7 and AB an amount of Rs.3,695/- was au,arded by the Tribunal under the head ohospitalization and. phannacg billso, which needs no interference by this Court as no documents filed in support of his claim to show that he spend an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/_. Further, the petitioner claimed Rs.2O,OOO/_ towards extra_ nourishment, which appear to be unreasonable and the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.2,OOO/-, which needs no interference by this Court.

17. The petitioner sustained 40% physicat disability and the same was confronted through a Doctor, however, the Tribunal considered the disability aL 2Oo/o instead of 4OVo. Taking into consideration of the avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined assess the disability of the petitioner at 4Oo/o as mentioned in Ex.C1. Further, the petitioner is aged about 23 years, for the age group between 20_25, the multiplier to be taken is ,17,, so, as per National Instrance Comltang r- L2 10{R,., {ACNA ,b.26O, of Nr3 Ltmitcd Vs. Pranag Sethi and otherst, the petitioner is entifled amount of Rs'4,5O0/- xl2xl7 x4O / lOO=Rs.3,67,2OO I -

18. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modifred and recalculated as above and as given in the table below for easy reference. Head Pain and sulIerance us rn unes [,oss of income Extra-nourishment talization Hos Pharmac Bills Future ProsPects (Permanent DisabilitY) Total Amount arrived at bY the Tribunal A.Eount arrived at by this Court Rs.75,OO0 Rs.4,5OO Rs.2 ooo Rs 2, Rs. 1,695 Rs. t,83,6OO/ - Rs.2,6a,795/- Rs.1 6() Rs.4 500 Rs.2 oo0 Rs.2 ooo Rs.1 695 ns.S,oZ'2Nl- Rs.5,37'395/-

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,68,795/ - to Rs.5,37,395 l. (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty seven Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Five Rupees Only) with the interest of 7 'sYo on the | 2ot7 AcJ zToo 13 l,tn,J ACUA l\to.26o, oJ 2Or3 enhanced arnount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of rea)ization. However, the claimants shall pay the defrcit Court Fee on the enhanced compensaLion. 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 receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdrau, the same without furnishing any surety. There shall be no order as to

20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII To, SIY-.A. JAYASREE ,,\55IST.{\T REGISTRAR \ \ CTION OFFICER i :r roa, cum-lX Addl chief Judge, ccc, Hyoerao)o (with records if ' Jl; 2 One cc to sRr.Jagathpar Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate Iopucj 3 One CC to SRl.Kota Sr, 4. Two cD copies tbba Rao' Advocate toPUCl .r.\, I'St t btE F (.) 1 fi l4rn 2026 z 6) i)Fc =nr \-{:_" HIGH COURT 'DArED..2210712025 JUDGMENT: MACMA.No.260'1 of 2013 t M.A.C.M.A. IS ALLOWht) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAYTHE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELLANEOU S APPEAL NO: 2601 OF 201 3 Between U Parshuramulu, S/o Balaiah, Occ - Driver Presently R/of H.No.17-2-550/1' Saidabad, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. S Shankaramma, Wo Venkat Reddy, Occ - Business, Rl/o Ragampet, Choppadandi, Karimnagar Dist, A.P.'

2. Cholamandalam MS Gneral lnsurance Co Ltd, Rep by its Deputy Manager, H.No.6-3-1093, V Floor WS Vintage, Boulevard, Rajbhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ... ResPondents/ResPondents . Appeal filed under Order 41 of CPC praying that the High court may be pleased to modify the Judgement and Decree passed in O-P.No.2024 of 2010 on the file of the MACT-cum-lX Addl Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad dt.08-07-2013 and enhance the compensation and interest throughout costs. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing a1! yqon^perusing. the grounds of appeal, thi Judgment jnd Decree of the District Court and the iiaterial paperi in ihe petitioi and upon hegr!1g the_arguments of.Sri Kasireddy Jagathpdt ieddy, for ttie Appeattant and of Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 2 -the That the appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,68,795/- to Rs.5,37,395/- (Bypee-s Five Lakhs Thiriy Seven Thousand Three Hundred and. Ninety Five Rupees Only) interest of 7 .Sok on the en hanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization; That the claimants shall pay the deficit Court Fee on the enhanced compensation;

3. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to deposit the sa'id 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 receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 4 That on such deposit, the petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety, 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/-A. JAYASREE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYi/ \ S TION OFFICER To, \ i\ \\ ')2- )

1. The MACT-cum-lX Addl Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad. (with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl.Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to SRI Kota Subba Rao, Advocate IOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies JA,/PSL HIGH COURT DAIED:221O712025 JUDGMENT: MACMA.No.2601 of 2013 ;{iar i ,^ft !\ \)o() t * 1 I tt L'r lljlb t t,\ -. M.A.c.M.A. rs A1_I_ol\,trI) '( J