The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. Dissatislied rvith the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accidenls Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short, the Tribunal), in O.P.No.2 of 2O05, dated

04.09.2014, the petitioner/ injured in the said O.P preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancemenl oI compensation amount.

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

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/ injured hled a petition under Section t66 (1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs,3,00,00O/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accider-r[ rhat Look place on 31.10.2003. It is stated by the petitioner that on 31. 10.2OO3, when the petitioner was travelling in an Auto bearing No.AP-2S U-5O91 from NDamabad tor,r.ards Varni and vvhen reached near Chinthakunta cross-road at about 3.O0 p.m., the driver of the said Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against a Cyclist coming from opposite direction and the Auto went off the road and turned turtle. As a rcsult, the petitioner, who was lravelling in the said Auto, sustained fractures of both bones of 2 MGP,J M. A. C. M.A. No. 4 OA7 of 20 1 4 right and left leg, fracture of right shoulder and skull and injuries to other parts of body. Immediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Headquarters, Nizamabad, where she was treated as inpatient and thereafter continued treatment with private Doctors and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/_ towards Nursing and nourishing.

4. It is stated by the petitioner/ injured that she was agecl 32 years and used to earn Rs. 1S,OOO/- per month by doing Tailoring work and Agriculture. Due to the accident, she incurred permanent disability a'rd unable to work and lost her future earning capacitl,. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.Ap,2S-U_509 1, therefore, respondent No. 1 , being the owner of the crime Auto and respondent No.2 being the insurer of Auto, both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,O0,0OO/_ along with costs and interest.

5. Before Lhe Tribunal, respondent No. l/owner of crime Auto remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its written statemenl denying the averments made in the claim petition and contended that the driver of the Auto was not having valid driving I 3 M. A. c. M. A. N.. 4 o o z .f 2c;;{ policy license and that respondent No. 1 committed breach of conditions as he failed to intimate about the accident to the Insurance Company and that thc insurance company had not received report under Section 15g(6) oi M.V.Act and that the claim of compensation is excess and exorbitant and therefore prayed to dismiss thc claim against it.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues for conducting trial:_ i. Whether the accident has laken pLace d_ue to rash and negligent driuing of the Auto beaing No.Ap_2|-u SO91 bg its diuer? ii. Whether the petitioner is entitlect Jbr compensotion? If so, to tuhat just amount ancl agotnst tuhom? iii. To uhat relief?

8. During the course of trial, rhe petitioner/ rnjured examined herself as PW1, got examined pWs.2 & 3 and got marked Exs.Al to A4 and Ex.C1 on her behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/Insurance Company, RW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to 84 were marked

9. After considering the oral and available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly-allowed the claim petition by awarding compensation of Rs.69,OOO/- along with interest @ 6ok per annum from the date of petition till the date of documentary evidence 1 4 MGP,,I M. A. C. M. A. No. 4 OO7 of 20 1 4 realizatior. payable by both the respondents I & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satished with the compensation awarded, the petitioner/ injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same. 1O. Heard arguments submitted by Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Sri G.Raj Kumar, learned Standing CounseI for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Perused the record.

11. The contentions of the learned counsel for Appellant/ injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that though the petitioner proved that she sustained 60% disability vide Ex.Cl and also by examining PW3, but the learned Tribunal had not considered the said evidence and had not awarded any amount towards disability and also awarded very meager amount towards compensation and hence, requested to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

12. On the o[her hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the petitioner/injured, except hling Exs.Al to A4, had not filed any document showing that she underwen t treatment for the injurics sustained by her. Therefore, learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had 5 MGP,J M.A.C.^t A.No.4007 oJ 2014 awarded reasonable compensation and intcrference of this Court is not necessary

13. Now the point that emerges for determination is, Whether the appellant/ injured is entitled for enhancement of compens otion? POINT:-

14. Since there is no dispute about Lhe manner of accident and Iiabilify of the respondents and since the findings arrived at by the Court below on those aspects were not challenged, there is no necessit5r to once again decide the above said aspects. The only point that has to be considered in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum of compensation.

15. A perusal of the quantum of compensation in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal ar,l,arded an amount of Rs.30,00O/- towards Pain and suffering, Head injury and shock; an amount of Rs.30,O00/- towards Medical expcnses, Extra- nourishment, Attendant and other incidcntal charges and Rs.9,O00/- towards loss of earnings.

16. Learned counsel for the appellant/ injured contended that though the appellant sustained 60% disability vide Ex.C 1 and also got examined PW3-Doctor to prove about the injuries sustained by her*.bu t the learned Tribuna'I, without considering the same, had 6 MGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No.4007 oJ 20 1 4 awarded very meager amount towards compensation and hence, requested to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation.

17. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the evidence of PW2, Superintendent of Government Hospital, Nizamabad, who deposed in his evidence that the petitioner was examined by Dr.Sudheer for the following injuries viz., (i) Swelling and Deformity over right leg with disclosed fracture of shaft of hbula; (ii) Swelling and deformity over left leg which revealed hair line fracture of tibia and (iii) Abrasion over the left leg and lhat Ex.A3-Wound Certificate is issued by him.

18. PW3 Orthopedic Surgeon deposed in his evidence that he examined the petitioner and found that the injuries sustained by the petitioner are one year old and that thc petitioner sustained (i) Fracture of right leg fibula, (ii) Fracture of tibia left leg and that there was mal-union with limp and left ankle arthritis and that he issued Ex.C 1-Disabitity Certihcate assessing the disabitity @ 60% and that the injuries mentioned in Ex.C 1-Disability Certihcate correspond to the injuries mentioned in Ex.A3-Wound Certificate. A perusal of Ex.C l-Disability Certihcate issued by Orthopedic Surgeon, Vaishnavi Hospital, Nizamabad and who treated the petitioner/ injured discloses that the petitioner sustained 6O7o permanent partial disability. . ,2, 7 MGP,J M A.C.M.A.1'lo 4007 of 2014 i9. Undisputedly, PW3-Orthopedic Surgeon, has rreated the appellant. He has categorically deposed that the appellant has suffered 60%o permanent partial disabilify on account of the injuries sustained to her. However, by a strange process reasoning the Tribunal rejected his evidence by stating that the appeliant has not obtained a certificate from the Medical Board. The Tribunal has not traced any statutory provision under whrch Medical Board is constituted and obtaining of the permanent Disability Certificate from the Medical Board is made obligatory for claimants under the Motor Vehicles Acr, I988.

20. In my considered opinion, nothing more is requircd than the testimony of the qualilied Orthopedic surgeon who trealed the appellant to show that the appellant has suflered the permanent disability to the extent of 600/o. Unless lhe Court hnds the evidence of the doctor not worthy of acceptance by giving cogent reasons, the opinion ol a qualified doctor, that too, of the doctor u,ho conducted the surgery and treated the patient, cannot be discredited. 2I. Further, a perusal of trx.C1- Medical Certificate issued by Orthopaedic Surgeon discloses that the injured sustained fracture of fibula right leg and fracture of tibia left leg with mal_union of left tibia causing shortening of limp and ankle arthritis and estimated 8 MGP,J M A.C.M.A No.4007 of 2014 disability percentage by using Mc.Bride Scale @ 60% which is a permanent partial disability. This Court finds the said disability to be on higher side as the mal union can be treated by a bone stimulator which is piaced ovcr the skin near the non_union for between 2O minutes and several hours each day or it can also be treated by attaching a metal platc to the bone or inserting rod down the centre of the bone. Further, thc lracture injuries can be treated by plaster cast or inserting rods for some period which can be removed at a later point of time. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to reduce the percentage of disability incurred by the petitioner/ inj ured from 6Ook to 3Oo/o. Further considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.20,0O0/- each towards 2 fracture injuries and Rs.3,O00/ each towards 2 simpte injuries.

22. Though petitioner/ inj ured stated that she used to earn Rs.15,00O/- per month by doing tailoring work and by working as a labour on Agriculture, but she has not hled any document showing the said income. Hence, the Tribunal, on reasonable hypothesis, took the monthly income of the petitioner @ Rs.3,OOO/- per month and calculated loss of earnings for 3 months which comes to Rs.9,00O/-. This Court, considering the said monthly tttGP,J M.A.C.M.A.No 4007 o.f 2014 income as :rwarded by Tribunal, is inclined to calculate loss of future earnings on account of disability as under:- Loss of future earning caPacity = monthly income of the petilioncr x perientage of disability x 12 x relevant multiplier = Rs.3000/- x 3O%o xl2 xl6 = Rs. 1,72,800/-.

23. Further, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs 30'0OO/ tou,ards pain and suffering; Rs 3O,OO0/- towards medical expenses and e xtra nourishment and Rs 9,O00/ - tow-ards loss of earnings, which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined [o interfere with the same Hence' the lotal compensation to which the petitioner/ injured is entitled is calculated as undcr:- S.No. Name of ttre Head Arnount awarded by Tribunal 1 2 4 5 2 Grievous injunes 2 simple injunes Loss of future earnings on account of disabilitY Loss of earnings for 3 months during the period of ueatment Parn and suffering Rs.9,OO0 / - Rs.30,000/- Amount awarded this Court Rs.40,000/ - (Rs 20,OOO/ - each tn ury Rs.6,O0O / - (Rs.3,O0O/- each) Rs. 1,72,800/ t t MGP,J M.A C ltl A.N1-4OO7 of 2014 Rs.30,OOO/- 6 Medrcal expenses and extra nourishment TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.2,87,800/- 7 24 . So far as interest on the compensation is concerned, the Rs.69,0OOl- learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 60/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization which this Court finds it to be meager and hereby enhances the same to 7 .5o/o per annum by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and othersr.

25. In the result, the Appeal is partly-allorvcd by enhancing the compensation amount awardcd by the Tribunal from Rs.69,000/- to Rs.2,87,800/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date ol rcalization. The respondents I & 2 are directcd to deposit the compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the appcllant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any sccuritl.. There shall be no order as to costs.

26. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPYII SD/. N SRIHARI, PUTY REGISTRAR. D ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad(With records)

2. One CC to SRI S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate IOPUCI 3. One CC to SRI G RAJ KUMAR, Advocate IOPUCI 4. Two CD Copies P+ ., -. '.. .,. -... *. : .;;-i. , i.i&t'1 * .-ffn*,&'..;;* .'.' :,:!:..:,,--'. _ ? - . PB .. _... \ HIGH COURT DATE D: 1 010312025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS MACMA.No.4007 of 2014 ,a\ ;:) \ni a -.'' ''. '.ii\, l|^ti," \ \\'.i "-<:,_ L ttt 1$6 r. 'ii ;a ,,f, , :;:] 1l;g-rqii l.;;:' PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS / /:* (6) flA lt1 g !-) \ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MIS CELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 4007 OF 2014 Between: Bigari Bharathi, Wo. Rajaiah, Age 41 years, Occ Gouthamnagar, Nizamabad. Tailor and Agriculture, Rl/o ...AppellanUpetitioner AND 1 2 Syed Akbar, S/o. Syed Ahmed, Age l\4ajor, Owner of auto.bearing no. AP-25-U-5091 , R/o. H.No.9-17-5014, Hashmi colony, Nizamabad. Nation lnsurance Company Ltd, through its Branch [\/anager, B.Laxmiraj Complex Jawahar road, Nizamabad (Cover note No. 00535 valid from '16.05.2003 to '1 5.05.2004) .. Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of [\,4otor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in IM.V.O.P.No.2 of 2005 dated.04.09.2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge) at N iza mabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upori perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal and the material papers in the MVOp and upon hearing the arguments of SRI S SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and NONE APPERAED, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and SRI G RAJ KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous appeal be and hereby is parfly- allowed;

2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.69,0001 to Rs.2,87,800/- which shall carry interest @ I 5% per annum from the dale of petition till the date of realizalion; 3. That respondents 1 & 2 are directed to deposit the compensation within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. That upon such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any securily;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal Shall stands Confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- N SRIHARI, TY REGISTRAR. D //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 7 To, PB 1 . The Chairman, lvlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal (lll Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad

2. Two CD Copies 3k HIGH COURT DATED:1 OlO3l2025 6*r= JUDGMENT+D MACMA.No.4007 of 2014 2 DRAFTS PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS fl- "\ ( rct ) I