The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI MANCHIKATLA VISHNUVARDHAN Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4: SRI A.RAMAKRISHNA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.l and 2: -- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.No.86 of 2O2S JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Manchikatla Vishnuvardhan, learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for insurance company for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant dissatislied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribtrnal-cum-Principal District Judge at Rajanna Sircilla (for short, 'Tribunai') in M.V.O.P.No.38 of 2O18, dated 22.O9.2023 ancl thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under:

3.1. The appellant has filed a claim petition under Section 166 (lXa) o[ Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.8,OO,0OO/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a motor vehiclc accident that occurred on 31.05.2014 at Dzrndupally, Manoharabad village of Toopran Mandal. It is averred in the claim petition that the appellant boarded one TATA Ace vehicle bearing No.A.P.23.X.6933 u,ith two others at Nacharam to go to his village and when they reached Dandupally village one lorry bearing ,\ \ t* 2 LNA,I MACMA No.86 of 2025 t No.TN.2!).AU.0096 (hereinafter called 'crime vehicle' for short) came in high speed and dashed TATA Ace vehicle. As a result, the appellant fcll down from the vehicle and received grievous injuries to his legs and all over body. Police registered Crime No.197 of 2Ol4 against driver of the crime vehicle.

3.2 Th<: Appeltant was initially admitted in Balaji Hospital, Petbasheerbad, Secunderbad and was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Hyderaberd, from there to ESI Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated lor four days as in-patient and then shifted to Akil Hospital, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. The Appellant rvas again shifted to NIMS Punjagutta Hospital, Hyderabad whet'e he underwent surgeries for his both legs and was treated to fc'ur fractured ribs and discharged after twenty days with advise to take bed rest for six months. tt is averred that the appellant has incurred Rs.1,5O,OO0/- towards medical expenses; that iIS on the date of accidenl., the appellant was working as Sales Representative in Saakshi Daily News paper in Medak Edition atrd was earning a sum of Rs.1O,5OO/- per month. It is further averred that the appellant has also lost his legs and thus, fil,:d claim petition, claiming Rs.8,0O,OOO/- as compensation. \ 3 LNA,J MACMA No.86 ol 202s

3.3 Respondent Nos.l and 2 remained ex-parte, respondent No.3 insurance company filed counter denying the manner in which the accident has taken place, age and earning of the appellant as well as injuries sustained by him. Respondent Nos.3 and. 4 further pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and the claim of the appellant is excessive and arbitrary and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

3.4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: 1) Whether the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driuing of offending uehicle i.e., Lorry beaing NO.TN.29.AU.9096 driuen bg its Driuer/ Rl? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what extent and from whott? 3)To whctt relieJ?

3.5. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant- injured, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and doctor was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.Al to A23 were marked. On behalf of respondents none was examined and no documents were marked. 4 LNA,] MACMA No.86 of 2025

3.6. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the oral and documentary cvidence placed on record, allowed ttre claim petition partly and awarded a sum of Rs.2,87,257 l- towarcls compensation to the appeuant payable by the respondent Nos.l to 4 jointly and severally with costs and interest (A 7.5% p.a. frorr the date of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compenszrtion, appellant prefcrred this appeal.

4. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel lor appellant submitted that the Tribunal has failed to award compensation towards grievous injuries as well ers simple injuries sustained by the appellant and no amount was lwarded towards future medical cxpenses. He further submitted Lhzr.t Tribunal has also not awardcd attendant charges and further amount awarded towards pain and suffering is very meager and thus, prayed to enhance the compensation. 5 Per contra, the learned counsel for respon,lent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that the Tribunal has awarded the compensation duly taking into consideration the material placr:d on record. He further submitted that appellant has not placed any disability certificate and any other material in proof of attr:ndant charges or -/ ). LNA,J MACMA No.86 of 2025 I 5 future medical expenses. Therefore, oo case is made out warranting interference by this Corrrt with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration: 6. Perusal of the record would disclose that the appellant has sustained following grievous injuries: 1) Closed Tibia Plateam Fracture Right leg - Grievous 2) GT.III compound fracture both bones right leg - Grievous, 3) C closed fracture left claceneum and he also sustained blunt injury to chest and also bleeding injuries all over the body. it is specific case of the appellant that no amount has been awarded towards flracture injuries and simple injuries sustained by the appellant. This Court f,rnds force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant and in considered opinion of this Court, the appellant is entitled compensation towards grievous injuries sustained by the appellant and accordingly a sum of Rs.75,000/- is awarded towards three fracture injuries (Rs.25,000/- each), Rs.25,000/- towards simple injuries and Rs.25,OOO/- towards attendant charges as the appellant sustained fracture to both legs and was hospitalized and is advised to take bed rest for about 6 months. Though, learned b 6 LNA,J MACMA No.86 of 2025 f counsel for the appellant contended that appellant has sustained disability and discomfort, neither the disability certificate nor any material to prove the disability has been placed on record. Therefore , the appellant is not entitled for further cornpensation. Conclgglqai

7. [n view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under: Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded I

6. Three fracture injuries Rs.75,OOO/ -(Rs. 25,OOO/ - each) Simple injuries Attendant charges Rs.25,OOO/- Rs.25,OOO/- Medical Expenses Rs.1,82,315/- Pain and suffering Loss of earnings Curing the period o[ treatment and rest Total compensation to be paid: Rs.5O,OOO/- Rs.54,9421- Rs. 4,12,257l-

8. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed alld the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerncd, is modified enhancing the compensiltion amount from Rs.2,87,257 l- to Rs.4,12,257 f -, which shall carrv interest at the rate awa.rded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition , LNA,J MACMA No.86 of 2025 7 till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of Six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. l To, //TRUE COPY// SD'. MOHD. REG OFFICER

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Rajanna Circilla.

2. One CC to Sri Manchikatla Vishnuvardhan, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy. Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies NVB/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2510612025 iHE S ( O(J 1 ,\-. '{r'iU 2[[ JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.86 of 2025 THE MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED l" {t [ 3383I THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE 'N WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry F|VE PRESENT . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISC EOUS APPEAL NO: 86 OF 2025 Between: Diddi Mallesham, S/o. Ramchandram, Age. 44 years, Occ. Sale Representative in Sakshi News Paper Toofran area, R/o. H.No. 4-2, Rajupeta H/o. Sripadha village of Gambhiraopet Mandal of Karimnagar District. ...AppellanUClaimant D

5. Ramchadnran, S/o.Ramaswamy, Age.36 yea Harur Dharmapuri District of Tamilnadu State TN.29.AU.0096). rs, Rl/o. Dhoddampatty village of . (Driver of Lorry Bearing No.

6. M. VUi Kumar, S/o. Not known, Age. Major, R/o. HZ3131 13, Mannan Kotai, Bandhara Post, Palacode TK, Dharmapuri District of Tamilnadu State, (Owner of Lorry Bearing No. TN.29.AU.0096).

7. Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch ,Manager No.113/114, Sir Theyagaraya Road,4th Floor, Meena Kampala Arcade, T.Nagar, Chennai - 600017. B. Royal Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch/anager, H.No.8-6-300, 1 st Floor, Kothirampur locality,Hyderabad road, Karimnagar town and District. (Policy No. VGCO279302000101 , valid 01.06.201 3 to 31.05.2014) RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section '173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.38 of 2018 daled.22logl2o23 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge at Rajanna Circilla. 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 arguments of Sri Manchikatla Vishnuvardhan, Advocate for the Appellant and appeared for the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, Advocate, and none appeared for the Respondent Nos. l and 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,87,2571- lo 4,12,2571- which shall carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization. 2. That the respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six g6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

3. That on such deposit, the appellant is entifled to withdraw the entire compensation amount.

4. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- MOHD. DEPUTY REG i I \. SECTION OFFICER ent Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Jr,rdge at To

1. The Motor Accid Rajanna Circilla.

2. Two CD Copies. NVB , HIGH COURT DATED25t06t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.86 of 2O2S THE MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED \