The High Court · 2025

convenience, the parties have been referred to as arraye(l before the Tribunal 4 The brie'f factual matrix of the present appeal i:; as un,iel

4.7. On 12.0t.2010 at about 8.00 a.m., while the pet'itioner was crossing the r.ad at Vangapally village, a car bearing registration No.AP-10-AQ-6678 (hereinafter referred to as ,crirre vehicle,) proceeding towards warangai side from Hyderabact came in rash and 2 LNA"J MACMA No iSS of 2O1s negligent manner in high speed and dashed the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell at a distance of 5 meters with blood injuries to nose, left hand and head. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir and later shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar for better treatment.

4.2. The Police, Bhongir Police Station registered a case in Crime No.169 of 2010 under Section of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle

4.3. The petitioner, rep.by his .father, contended that petitioner was studying V Class and due to the accident, he discontinued the same as he was not in a position to continue study as his left hand was not functioning and his family sustained immeasurable damages both financially and socially and that h" rp",-tt huge amount for treatment'

4.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle and the crime vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2-insurance company and sought compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him'

5. The respondent No.1 remained ex parte' The respondent No'2- insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the manner of occurrence of accident, as put-forth by the petitioner, the age, I I \ :.--;- -.* 3 LNA,I MACMA No.355 of 2015 avocation and earnings of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 further contended that the accident was not reported by its insured in collusion with the peti:ioner with a view cause great 1,1;s to the insurance company and linally, prayed to dismiss the ciaim petition.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribur-ral har; framed the following issues: 1) \Alhr:ther the pleaded accident dated 11i.08.2010 has occurred owing to the rash and negligent rlriving of the driver cf car bearing No.AP-10-AQ-6678 ani whethet the petitioner has sustained injuries in the said accident ? 2) Wh,:ther the crime vehicle No.AP-10-.{Q-661,8 was owned by the 1.t respondent and insu red w lth 2"d respon,lent as on the date of the accident anl whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, iJ' so to rvhat quantunl and what is the liability of the respondents ? 3) To what relief?

7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of ttLe petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 6 wele examined and Exs,A1 to A7 were rrrarkecl. On behalf of the responden- No.2-ilsurance company, no witness waLs examined, however, copv of insurance policy was marked as Er:.B1.

8. The Tribunal, on due appreciation of the material e nd evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and :regligent driving of the driver o1, crime vehicle and awarded a surn ,f Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner ,/ 4 LNA,l MACMA No.355 o12075 payable by the respondent Nos.1 to and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7 .5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization

9. The learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed for in view of grievous injuries sustained by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence and documents produced by the petitioners; that due to the acciden! there was a sharp hole in the neck suffered at the time of operation, which is a permanent disability as per the evidence of P.W.6, however, the Tribunal has not properly considered the disability sustained by the petitioner' He submitted that Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards future medical expenses, loss of amenities, future prospects, extra nourishment and transportation. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in awarding meager amounts towards pain and suffering and mental agony and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation' l0.Learnedcounselforappellant/petitionerplacedrelianceonthe following decisions in support of his contention' i) Sanjay Batham vs. Munnalal Parhar and othersl; ii) Govind Yadav vs New India Insurance Co'Ltd''1-*----. ' zorz izy eLo ts:1sc1 I t 5 LNA,l MACMA No.355 oJ 2015 11,. Per contrn, the learned counsel for the resportdent rro.2-irsurance company submitted that the Tribunal had ril3htly rwarded the compensatiorr towards injuries sustained by the petitioner and the grounds raisr:cl by the petitioner are untenable and no case is made out warranting tterference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appr:al. Consideration:

12. With rr:g;ard to the principal contention raisecl by iearned counsel for petitioner that Tribunal failed to award compensation for permanent disability suffered by the petitioner and thereby pebitioner put to 100% loss of earnins capacity, perusal of the record would disclose that as per Ex.A6-discharg;e summary issued by Kamineni }fuspital, Hyderabad, petitioner has suffered a serious head injury, left parieta I small EDH with underlying hemorrhagic contusion, diffuse brain ,redema and injuries to left ear bleed abrasion over left ankle foot and folearm.

13. Accordirg to the evidence of P.W.4-Dr.PaIvisan, Ciri,:f R.M.O., of Kamineni Hospital, examined on behalf of the pel.itioner, stated that petitioner was admitted on 12.08.2010 with history of severe head injury, left parir:tal small EDH with underlying hemorrhag Lc contusion, 'lzot r; to scc o8:i I 6 LNA,] MACMA No.355 ol2o1s diffuse bran oedema, and was discharged on 25.10.2010. He deposed that pe(itioner was treated by the Dr. Dil Nawaz, B.Bhikadvala and Ex.P6-discharge sumlnary issued by their hospital and the above injuries are grievous in nature. He deposed that EDH means Extra Dural Hemorrhage which blood oozing in the brain very serious cause by neurobreak and the third injury defuse brain oedema means swelling of brain and the numbness and lean of left side of body may be due to head injury.

14. P.W.4 further deposed that the above injuries are severe to head tracheotomy and ventilatory treatment and there is possibility of occurring fits frequently and frequent medical checkup and continuous treatrnent is required for the head injury. He further deposed that Exs.A8 and ,\9 i.e., investigation rePorts issued by their hospital' The petitioner was referred to Gandhi Hospital, for breathing problem and the petitioner was treated by Dr.Kiran, ENT and there is possibility of occurring breathing problems due to ventilatory for the head injuries. Though he was cross-examined by the insurance company, nothing was elicited to discard the evidence of P.W.4.

15. According to the evidence of P.W.6-Dr.L.Sudharshan Reddi, ENT Doctor, Govt.ENT Hospital, Koti, petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 13.09.2010 with difficulty o( breathing and trachestomy was I l't \ \ 7 LNA,J \4ACMA No.355 ol2015 done on 1,4.09.2010 and he was treated upto 26.01t.2010. He deposed that trachestonly means opening the windpipe in the neck for breathing and the petitioner was readmitte d on 29.09.2011 for closin6; trachestomy wound and rtscharged on 13.10.2011 and the petiticner requires physi,otherapy for low voice. Exs.P13 & 14 issued bv Govt. ENT hospital. Perusal of Ex.Al5-photographs would sl-row that there is a sharp hole in the neck suffered at the time of operrrtion ard there was an injury to the, ieft hand. 1,6. From tht: evidence of the ?.Ws.4 and 6 - Doctors, and material placed on rec,trd and as per Ex.A6-discharge summary, petitioner sustained severe head injury, left parietal small EtrH witl-r underlying hemorrhagic contusiory diffuse brain oedema, which are grievous in nature, as evi<funt from the evidence of P.W.4-Dr.palviison. In the light of above this <liscussion, this Court is of the opirrion that petitioner suffered head ilrjury and also have breathing problerr.r and lhe nature of injuries are also grievous in nature and further, petit..oner has also taken treatment in various hospitals and spent money for,the tr:atment and he requires continuous treatment in future, which is evidr:nt from the e.vidence of P.\4'.4.

77. However. the Tribunal without considering th: injuries sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6, declinr:d to award l LNA,I MACMA No.355 of 2015 any amount towards future treatment and medical expenses on the ground that the Doctor who treated the petitioner was not examined on behalf of the petitioner. In the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that mere non- examination of the Doctor, who treated the petitioner, it cannot be said that petitioner is not sustained grievous injuries and he does not require future treatment. Though the Doctor, who treated the petitioner was not examined, on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.4 was examined, who is competent doctor to depose basing on the medical record.

18. Further, during the examination of the pefitioner/ injured as P.W.2 before the Tribunal, he was asked to walk in the court hall and on seeing that the petitioner was walking comfortably, the Tribunal has observed that walking of the petitioner does not show loss of normal gait and that he never approached the hospital after 04.09.2010 i.e., after discharge from the hospital and came to conclusion that the contention of the petitioner that he suffered disability has no application to the facts of the case on hand. However, perusal of the medical evidence and material placed on record would disclose that the petitioner sustained severe head injury, left partial small EDH with underlying hemorrhagic contusion, diffuse brain oedema and breathing problem, which are internal injuries in nature. The Tribunal coulcl nol , ) \ \ 9 N AC|\1A ^a-355 LNA,J ol2015 have taken the exercise of assessing the disability of the petitioner on the basis of physical appearance and walking of the petit.ioner in the Court hall, which is per se unwarranted and erron€,ous. Therefore, the observation of the Tribunal on this aspect is unsusta.inable.

19. In view of the above discussion, this Court ir; of the considered view that petib oner is entitled to an amount of lt:;.2,00,0r10/ - toward fufure medicaJ r:xpenses.

20. Insofar as other contention of the petitioner that Tribrnal has not awarded anlr u,-r-rorr",, towards grievous injuries, it is evident that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under this head. 3onsidering the injuries sust,rined by the petitioner are grievous in natur,:, this Court is of the considered view that an amount of Rs.50,00Cr/- can be awarded towards grievorts inj uries. 2L. Insofar as; the compensation towards medical treatment, extra nourishment and attendant charges, the Tribunai has awarded an amount of Rs.1,{)0,000/- in lump sum. As per Ex.p7-nredical biIls issued by Kamineni Hospital, petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.94,325 / _ towards medicaI expenses and having regard to the fact th;rt petitioner underwent treatment as inpatient from 12.0g.2010 to 25.10.110i0 for the injuries sustained by him, he is entitled to an amo "rnt of Rs.15,000/_ 10 LN4! MACMA No.3SS ol2O1S towards extra nourishment, and Rs.10,000/_ towards attendant charges. Pgtitioner is also entitled to an amount of Rs.5,000/_ towards transportation and Rs.50,000 f - towards mental agony since he has suffered physical pain, suffering and trauma and also lost an academic year'and accordingly, impugned award is liable to be modified to the extent indicated above. Conclusion: 22 In view of the above discussion, the compensation amourt is recalculated as under SI.No. Head Compensation awarded 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Fufure medical expenses Rs.2,00,0ffi/- lnjuries Medical expenses Extra nourishment Attendant charges Mental agony Transportation Rs.50,000/- Rs.94,325/- Rs.15,000/- Rs.1Q000/- Rs.5Q000/- Rs. 5,000/- Total com ensation to be aid: ris.4,24,325/- LS. In the result, Appeat 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.1,3OOOY*- _ \ I I t \ \ 11 LNA,I i.4AC\4A Na_355 012015 l l Rs.4,24,325 / -, rvhich shall carry interest at the rate 7.5% ar.t.arded by the Tribunai. from the date of the claim petition tiil the date of realization. The respondt:nts 1 and 2 herein are directed to depos it the above compensation lmount within a period of six weetl:s frorrL the date of receipi of copy of this order. On such deposi! the appellant/petitioner is entitled to rvithdraw the entire compensation amount. l rere shal be no order as to clsts. Pending rniscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. A SRINIVASA REDDY, ASSIS ANT REGISTRAR. \ ECfION OFFICER To, \

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-curn- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri Chandraiah Somavarapu, Advocate tOPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OPUC;] 4. Two CD Copies ADK l: l, I ?i ,i.. ...' ---r'.'}a- ..I&a!'}r.rra*r*- - r' ;"_-: I f a HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.3SS ot 2015 tHE s14 r4:' ( c, O ($ 2 4 iIIB ilEi E o .\ * oF )Pz,T i:t rLD * 2 DRIAFTS PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS \er Art IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENry FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETW MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 355 OF 2015 Between: Danthula Vidya Sagar, S/o Naveen, Aged about'12 years, Occ Student, Rl/o Vangapally of Yadagirigutta (m), Nalgonda District, being minor rep.by his father Danthula Naveen, S/o Sanjeeva, Aged about 34 years, Occ Labour, Rlio L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad. ...AppellanUClaimant AND 1 M/s Shantha Educational Society C/o St. Peters Grammer School, rep.by T. Jaipal Reddy, S/o Bala Reddy,'Srirampur, Boinpally, Secunderabad. 2. The Reliance General lnsurance Co., Ltd.,, Rep. by its Legal Officer, 4th Floor, Sagar Plaza, Near Big Bazaar, Abids, Hyderabad. ...Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,19BB against the Award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.354 ot 20'12 dated.2.7-08-2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 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 Chandraiah Somavarapu, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby 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.1,30,000/- to Rs.4,24,325!, which shall carry interest at the rate 7.5o/o awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization; ': .-$-7-|t'-7 2 That the respondents 1 and 2 herein are directed to dr:posit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order;

3. That on such deposit, the appeilanupetitioner is entifled to w thdraw the entire compensation amount; 4 That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower court shal stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. S D-/- A _SRt t\t TVASA RE DDy, ASSISTATIT REGISTRAR: //TRUE COPY// 'il, \"$E CTION OFFICER To, 1' The chairmar, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- X r,dditionar chief ^ Judge, City C vil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copie,s ADK w d 4 ..r- HIGH COURT DATED:2410112025 DECREE MACMA.No.3SS ot 2015 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS aS \