The High Court · 2025

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ injured liled a petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.27,50,00O/- from the respondent Nos.l to 3 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 18.03.20O9 at 11.30 A.M. at the outskirts of Girnibavi, near Mubarak Rice Mill, Warangal- Narsampet Road. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that on

18.03.2009 at 1O.OO A.M., when he, along with Md.Awais Ahmed Khan as pillion rider, went to Jayamukhi Engineering College, Narsampet, on Motorcycle bearing No'AP- 15-AC- 6922 for booking the said College to conduct Annual function and while they were returning to Warangal on the said motorcycle and when reached near Girnibavi Village after passing Mubarak Rice Mill, Warangal- I 2 MGP.J MACMA-N,-1A13 of 2017 Narsampet Road, at about 11.30 hours, one Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-25U-2289 coming from Warangal side and proceeding towards Narsampet and which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner from the opposite direction. As a result, the motorcycle hit a bullock cart resulting in injuries to the petitioner and the pillion rider and the petitioner's right leg was fractured i.e., both bones of right leg were totally broken in three places. The said accident was witnessed by two persons i.e., Bokka Srinu and ChekkaVajramma of Maheshwaram Village. Immediately after the accident, the pillion rider who iravelled atong with the petitioner on the alieged motorcycle called 108 Ambulance and the petitioner was shifted to Orthocare Hospital, Karimnagar, for treatment.

4. Based on a complaint given by the pillion rider at about

16.00 hours on the same day of accident, Police of Duggondi police Station, Warangal District, registered a case under Section 337 IpC initially against respondent No. 1/driver of crime vehicle, which was subsequently altered to Section 338 IPC after conducLing investigation and the same was numbered as C.C.No.44O of 2OO9.

5. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that after the accident, he was shifted to Ortho care Hospital, Karimnagar, underwent surgery to right leg as both bones of the right leg were broken at three places. He also suffered with fracture of tibia right mid third 3 MGEJ MACMA No 1613 0f 2017 on right leg, PCL avulsion injury on right knee and fracture of right femur segmenl.al split on right thigh and all the injuries sustained by the petitioner are grievous in nature and the petitioner was discharged from the Hospital on O2.O4.2OO9 with advice of complete bed rest for six months. Due to severe pain, the petitioner/ injured was again admitted into the Hospital and after complete investigation, he underwent surgery for the second time for fracture of tibia right mid third closed injury and pCL avulsion injury right knee and was discharged on 18.04.2009. Again on

03.08.2010, in Emergency condition, he had to undergo surgery for third time at Bhoom Reddy's Hospital for non-union of distal fracture of right femur. Again on O4.O8.201O, he underwent surgery by way of bone grafting procedure and was discharged on

06.08.2010. The petitioner was admitted in Ortho Care Hospital, Karimnagar, for periodical checkup and underwent diagnostic tests for segmental fracture right femur with IM nail in situ and mal- union distal fracture site debridement irritation and was discharged on 20.08.2O10. Inspite of undergoing three major operations, the petitioner's right leg could not be cured completely and he is unable to wa,lk and is compelled to take rest due to surgeries and had suffered lot of pain and difficulty in walking for the past 6 years. / 'l I 4 MGPJ MACMA No.l613 of 2017

6. It is further stated by the petitioner ot 23.03.2015, he was admitted at Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad, for diagnosis of non- union with implant (nail) in situ right femur and surgery was performed for removal of implants and he incurred a sum of Rs.l',66,6761 - for operation and pharmacy bills at Yashoda Hospital, Secunderabad and he was advised to non-weight bearing walking with walker support.

7. Upon examination of the petitioner, on 23.11.20i 1, the Medical Board of Government of A.P. issued Disability Certificate to the petitioner assessing the percentage of disability @ 82o/o and also stated that the petitioner is suffering with permanent disability of left lower limb, postal traumatic sequei limbs due to post traumatic stiffness of right lower limb. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that due to the said

8. disability, he lost happiness of life and is suffering with mental agony and pain and unable to perform daily activities and lost healthy life and became dependant on others. It is also stated by the petitioner/injured that prior to accident, he used to work as Event Manager and used to organize public gathering events, political gathering events, marriage functions, etc and was being .paid salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month. Due to the said accident, he \st his bright future and his children were deprived of standard education and lost his income for a period of six years and was put , MGEJ MACMA No.1613 ol2O17 to irreparable loss and earning capacity and is in need of attendant all the time for doing petty personal works and became totally dependent on the family. Hence filed claim petition seeking compensation against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. g. Responclent Nos. 1 & 2, who are the Driver and owner of TATA Sumo bearing No.AP-25U-2289, remained ex-parte.

10. Respondent No.3/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the occurrence of accident, rash and negligent driving by respondent No. 1, injuries sustained by the petitioner, treatment undergone by the petitioner, expenses incurred, sustenance of permanent clisability and also denied the loss of income, avocation, insurance coverage to the subject crime vehicle and driving license of respondent No. 1. It also contended that the petitioner/ injured, while trying to overtake the bullock cart, got confused and dashed tJle bullock cart with his motorcycle and there is no involvement of Crime Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-2SU- 2289 it t-he accident and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.

11. Based on the contentions made by both parties, the learned ' Tribunal had framed the following issues for consideration: - O WTtether th.e accident lnd occurred due to rash and negligent diuing of Tata Sumo bearing No.AP-29U-2289 *.*. / I j I 6 MGPJ MACMA No 1613 0f 2017 by its diuer or due to rash and. negligent riding of motorcgcle beaing No.Ap_l5_AC_6922 bg its rider? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to uhat amount and from u_thich of the respond_ents? (ii{ To uhat relief.

12. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured examined himself as PW1 and got examined pWs 2 to 5 and got marked Exs.Al to A27 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent No.3/lnsurance Company, RWs I & 2 were examined and Exs.B1 and Xl were marked.

13. The Tribunal, after considering the evidence adduced and documents filed by both sides, awarded a sum of Rs.23,61,672/- towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent No.3 in the first instance and later recover the same from respondent No.2. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.3 in the said M.V.O.P./Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

14. Heard Sri A.V.K.S.prasad, learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company, Sri M.A.Rahman, learned counsel representing respondent No.1 and Sri C.Damodar Reddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.2 & 3. I I /' 7 MGEJ MACMA.N,.1613 o12017

15. The grounds raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/ Insurance Company in the present Appeal are that the learned Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the deceased @ Rs. 12,O00/- per month without there being any proof of evidence and also erred in considering the disability @ 82o/o and also failed to consider that the driver of the crime vehicle had no valid driving license to drive the crime vehicle i.e., TATA SUMO and that there is an abnormal delay in filing the claim petition and hence prayed to allow the Appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Tribunal.

16. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No.l/injured filed his written arguments contending that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Future prospects to the established income by lollowing the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case between National Insurance Compang Ltd. Vs.Pranog Sethi and othersl and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation amount by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case betr,r,een Surekha Vs.Santosh2 wherein it is heid that "In the I matter of insurance claim compensation in referentn. to the motor arcident, the Court should not toke hgper techntcal approach and ensure that "just compensation" is autarded to the affected person or tle claimants". ' 2017 AcJ 27oo 112021) 16 Slp.eme Ctur Cases 467 j I B MGPJ MACMA_No. 1 6t 3 0t 2017

17. After hearing the arguments on both sides, the point that emergbs for determination is, Whether the order possed by tLrc learned Tibunal requires intederence of this Court? POINT:- 18. As seen from the grounds of Appeal, there is no dispute regarding the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained by the petitioner/ injured. Hence, this Court is not inclined to once again delve into the said aspects. The contentions raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/Insurance Company in the grounds of Appeal are relating to quantum of compensation and driver of the crime vehicle not having valid driving license to drive transport vehicle i.e., the subject crime TATA SUMO bearing No.AP-25U-2289.

19. As far as {irst contention is concerned, a perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW3, who deposed that the petitioner worked in their firm-SR Decorators, Event Organizers Pvt.Ltd. as Event Manager from January 2004 to March 2009 and used to receive an amount of Rs.12,000/- per month towards his salary as per Ex.A7-Salary Certificate, fixed the income of the petitioner/ injured as Rs. 12,O00/- per month. This Court \ cbnsiders the same to be desirable and is not inclined to interfere 't/ ;' ,/.' o MGPJ MACMA No 1A1 3 af 201 7 with the samc. As far as disability is concerned, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW4- Orthopaedic Surgeon, who deposed that he examined the petitioner at CAIMS ancl issued Ex.A8-Disability Certificate assessing the percentage of disability sustained to the petitioner/injured @ 82%, calculated the loss of future income at Rs. 18,89,28O/-.

20. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.75,O00/- towards pain and suffering on account of three fractures, an amount of Rs.2O,000/- towards extra nourishment and ar amount of Rs.2O,O00/ - towards transportation charges. Apart from this, the learned Tribunal, considering the Hospital expenditure incurred by the petitioner/ injured under Exs.A2 1 to A26, awarded a sum of Rs.3,57,332/- towards medical expenses. This Court, upon calculating the amounts mentioned under Exs.A21 to A26, arrived at the same amount as awarded by the Tribunal towards medical bills. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal as far as medical bills are concerned. Therefore, the total compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the petitioner/injured comes to Rs.23,61,6121-. The said compensation amount also carries interest @ 7.5oh per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. , I I I I I I 10 MGPJ MACMA.No 1613 ot 2017

21. As far as liability is concemed, the learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the cross-examination of RW2, wherein it is admitted that the subject crime TATA Sumo bearing No.Ap-25V- 2289 is a light motor vehicle covered under Ex.A6-Driving license and respondent No. 1 is authorized to drive the same and the policy was in force as on the date of accident, applied the principle of pay and recovery by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Jagaprakash Aganual and others Vs. Moh.d. Kaleemulla and anothers and directed respondent No.3 to pay compensation at first instance and later recover the same from respondent No.2 by proving violation. This Court do not find any reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal.

22. It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 1/injured that the learned Tribunal failed to consider future prospects on the established income of the petitioner/injured. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the decision of the Honble Apex Court reported in Pappu Deo Yadav vs.Naresh Kumar and othersa wherein it is held that where a claimant suffers from perrnanent disabilitg as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under tle head of loss o/ future earnings lDould depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disabilitg on ' 2012 (q ALr 494 ' 2o2o Law sud (sc) 577 ,/ 11 MGPJ MACMA.N..1613 012017 his eaming capacity. In the present case, the petitioner/injured sustaihed fracture injuries and is presently walking with the support of a stick and can also continue his job as Event Manager by deputing some workers and making them follow his instructions. If that is impossible, he can also do some other petty works as he is not a permanent employee in the.organization of SR Decorators and Event Organizers Private Limited. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to award future prospects as the injuries sustained to him do not impact the income generating capacity of the injured. Hence the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1/injured in this regard is unsustainable.

23. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.l/injured that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs. 1 ,00,000/ - towards removal of implant. In this regard, a perusal 01' the amounts awarded under different heads shows that the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.3,57,332/- towards medical expenses, an amount of Rs.75,OOO/- towards pain and suffering; an amount of Rs.2O,000/- towards extra nourishment and an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards transportation which this Court hnds reasonable and do not require any further enhancement of the same. I I 12 MGEJ MACMA No 1613 0(2017

24. Further, a careful reading of the impugned judgment shows that the iearned Tribunal had rightly dealt with all the aspects and arrived at a correct Iinding which requires no further interference of this Court. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits arld substance and"is liable to be dismissed.

25. In the result, the Appeai filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. HARI P ASSISTANT REGI SAD RAR SECTION O FICER To,

1. The chairPerson, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judges Court, Karimnaga(With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri A V K S Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri It4 A Rahman, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to Sri C Damodar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADl(gh w {., I I HIGH COURT DATED:10101,t2025 ( J o () Tr.lE ST4 14: s( 21ilAn M I ( t t)F.io * { JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.1613 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS <,as + &*, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1613 OF 2017 Between: M/s-Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, rep by O/o.Regional Office Snehalatha Building. 6-3-871, Road, Begumpet, Hyderabad. PB Manager (Claims) No.45, Greenland ...AppellanURespondent No.3 AND 1 Mohd.Abdul Moiz, s/o.Abdul Nabi, R/o.H.No 9-04-78, Srinagar Colony, Kashmeergadda, Karimnagar. 2 3 Shanigarapu Narayana @ Suman, S/o.Srinivas, Occ: Driver of the Vehicle R/o H. No.2-9013, J'aggaiahpalli Village, Jammikunta [t/andal, Karimnagar District. Tharaka Ram, S/o.Bhadraiah, Occ: Owner of the Vehicle, R/o.H.No. 22-03-1 45, Desaipet, Warangal District. ..Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.545 o'f 2015 dated.30.0'l .2017 on the file of the Court of the ChairPerson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judges Court, Karimnagar. 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 A V K S Prasad, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri M A Rahman, Advocate for the Respondent No.l and Sri C Damodar Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 & 3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I I

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeat be and hereby is d ismissed; 2- That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// sd/- v. HAR| PRASAD ASSTSTANT REGtyTRAR w SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The ChairPerson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- principal District Judges Court, Karimnagar

2. Two CD Copies ADK W HIGH COURT DATED:10101t2025 DECREE MACMA.No.1613 of 2017 DISMISSING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \-{.odd