The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.2: SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA The Court made the following: ORDER HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C. M.A.NO.s 7 10F 2021 JUD ENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieve,d by the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2074 in M.V.o.p.Nc,,1307 0f 2002 passed by t.he Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VIIt Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal,,). 2, For convenience and clarity, the parties her-e in are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioner before the l-ribunal is that on 01.02.2002, the petitioner was travelling in trr: auto bearing No.AP-25U-1259 at about 9.30 A.M. near thr: fruit market, Nizamabad, the auto turned turue due to rasl and negliqent driving by the driver. As a result, the petit oner sustained fractures and immediately he was taken to Maithrl Hospital, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, where he was admittecl as inpatient andhe incurrt:d expenditure of Rs.60,000/-. tt is the case of the petitioner that he was a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He claimed .r compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- 2 ETD,] MACMA No.571 2021 '- i:

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2 Filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and further denied its liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of the auto driver and that auto driver does not have valid driving license as on the date of accident and that the company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial 1) Whether the accident was due to rash driving of auto No.AP-25-U-1259? and negligent 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and against which of the respondents? 3) To what relief?

6. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined as pws.1 and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of respondents no evidence was adduced

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.44,000/- as against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preflerred the present appeal seeking enhancement. \ -/ v 3 ETD,] MACN1A No.571 2021

8. Heard the submission of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the appellantand Sri V. Srinivas Rao, earned counsel for respondent No.2 9, Learned counsel for the appellant has subTritted that the Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensatirrn and that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries and su'fered a lot. He further submitted that the appellant filed medicrrl bills and also the evidence of the doctor was adduced but the l'ribunal has not taken the same into consideration and has a rvarded a very meagre amount. He also submitted that the Trikrunal has failed to consider the earnings of the appellant. Thereiore, he prayed to enha nce the compensation. 1O, Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contel(led that there is no infirmitv in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he prayed to uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, thi; Court frames the following points for determination: V/hether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as pral,etd for? Whether the order and decree of tht: Tribunal need any interference? To what relief? 1 2 .> .\ I 4 ETD,] MACMA No.571 2021 L2. NT NO.1: a) The appellant is aggrieved with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is his case that he is a fruit vendor and that he used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month. However, no proof is filed in this regard. b) The accident pertains to the year, 2002, some amount of guess work has to be made based on a reasonable hypothesis to assess the income of the petitioner. c) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limitedl, the Apex Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income, but in the present case, the petitioner is a fruit vendor. d) Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas,s case. The income of the petitioner can be safely taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. A perusal of Ex.A3linjury certificate reveals that the appellant sustained one grievous injury on the left foot. Ex.44 is issued by Mithri Hospital wherein the petitioner has undergone '(20I r ) t2 scc 236 i I I I I i I ,, I : i i I I 7 5 ETD,] MA( l,4A No.571 2021 treatment and the injuries mentioned in Ex.A4 iil'e deposed by PW.2, who has also stated about the treatment tl-at was given to the petitloner in their hospital. Ex.44 further shovrs; the nature of treatment and investigations that were done. I1 view of the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment underwent by him, this Court opines that a r amount of Rs.SO,OOO/- towards pain and suffering be awarded. In view of the gravity of injuries sustained by him, it is c,p,ined that the appellant miqht have taken three (3) months ti -ne to recover. Thus, (Rs.4,500/-x3)=13,500/-is awarded toa,,ards loss of earnings. The medical bills are filed under Ex.A6, :;o considering the same, the Tribunal has awarded an amount cf Rs.1O,OO0/- which appears to be just and reasonable tcrrards medical expenses. In addition to the medical expenses, the appellant might have incurred some expenditure towards t -ansportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges and incide ntal expenses. Therefore, this Court awards another Rs.1O,OOO / - towards the same.

13. POINT NO.2: \ Thus, it is opined that the appellant is entitled to enhancement oF compensation. The compensation granted by 5 ETD,] MACMA NO,5 71 2021 the Tribunal to the extent of RS.44,OOO,/- is enhanced to Rs.83r5OO/-. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly. L4. POINT NO.3: In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellant is parily allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1307 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional District ludge at Nizamabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.44,OOO/- to Rs.g3,5OO/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall sta nd closed. SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY' SECTION OFFICER To, Ye

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims TribunaFcum-Vlll Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. z. ondcc to Sri S Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies t. HIGH COURT DATED:1110412025 JUDGMENT MACMA.N o.571 of 2021 /- t': ri.!lz,r { ? i BCT 2U[ \'''7x- -\:.- (i i' ) \ -:: ,/ I I I I i i 'I PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6,{P' W^.