One CC to Sri T v. Venkata Rami ReddY

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELAI{ iANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REC DY M.A.C.M.A.No.739 of 2Ol9 DATE: O3.12.2O25 Between: Mandala Mallikarjuna NI/s. V.N.S.Transport and another AND JUDGMENT: Appellant F lspondents This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle r Acr, 19gg has been preferrcd by the appellant claimant, chaltengi.r j thc order anrl decree datecl O4-O2-2015 passed by the Chairr an, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-l Addirional District Ju,1]1 , Nalgondir (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal") in O.p- Nrr.l 7 of 2OO9, r,vhereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3, I ri 2007, wittr rnterest rir 7.S7o per annum in far.our of thc appellant clrrjr arnt lor thr: injurics sustained bv him in a road accident. \ \ ,,1 : \ -r 2

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.112003, the appellant-claimant, a Lorry-cleaner bv occupation, rvas travellLng in lorry bearing No.AP-09-W-4345 (owned by respondent No.1 herein) along wiih the driver of Lhe said lorry lrom Chcngathuru to go to L&T Cement Factory at Tadiparthy and whcn the]' rcached the oulskirts of Chcnnekothapally Vitlage at about 1O;OO pm, the driver of the said lorry, in order to avoid an oncorning car that u'as proceeding without headlights, rashly veered the lorrl to the right. The lorry lost control and crashed inLo a roadside trec As a result, rhe appellant suffered serious injuries, i.e., lractures of both tibia and fibula of his left leg, fracture of left ankle, fracture of right forearn-r (ulna), and other multiple injuries. Immcdiately after the accident' the appellant- claimant was treated at Governmcnt Gcneral Ilospilal, Anantapur and subsequently he rvas shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where surgical Lreatment was performcd on his left leg (external fixation). Stating that prior to the accidcnt, thc appellant was hale and healthy, engaged as lorry cleancr and rvas earning a moL-rthly income of Rs.5,OO0/- and on account of the accidellt and resultant permanent disability, he became unfit to continue his occupation, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.'1,OO,OOO/- lor thc injurics sustained by him ir.t the said accident- \ \ I 3

3. Beforc the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner remained ex perle Respondent No.2 insurance Col 1 coultLcr denl rng tltc a\rermen[s of the claim petition ar r that the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed f of the claim. The Tribunal, on appreciation of llr documentary cvidence, held that the accident occurrr:cl neglrgencc ol the lorry driver and awarded a sum oI Fs towards compensation with interest at the rate of Z.5oro pt favour of the appellant-claimant, payable by the responl and severally. Drssatisfied with the quantum, [he appellrr has lilecl this appeal seeking enhancement of compensatio.r lf the lorry rny lilecl a contended ,r'dismissal oral and duc [o the 3,15,2OO / - annum it-r :nts jorntlv Lt - claiman t

4. Consider.e d thc submissions of the le:rrned courLr el for the partics and peruscd the record.

5. ThcL-e Ls no dispute with regard to the finding of rh: Tribunal that the accidt:nt occurrecl due to the negligence o[ thr: t,r.ry driver and ira bility. 6 quantum of comp I rsa[ion is So lar as thc assessment of conccr-necl, on a rc-appraisal of the evidr:r r that thc appcllanc suft'ered scrrous permanent injuries ([ractures ol L rth bones ol left leg, ankle, fracrure of right arm, surgery, mal_unron, restricte.l ankle mobility, .rimpir-rg), as evidenced by mecrical recor-(r! and the record, it is .- ,] 4 Disability Certihcate {40% disability). Further, the pre accident occupation of the appcliant claimant u'as lorry-cleaner which demands physical mobility, abiliry to lilt, walk, climb etc ' but the injuries and resulLing disability render him unfit for such labour anymore.

7. Having regard to the age, the permanent disability and its life- 1or-rg impact, this Court is of the opinion that the compensaLion awardcd by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement Keeping in view the multiple fractures, surgery, permancnt disabihty, loss of mobilily, and long-tcrm hmitations, the amount grantcd by the Tribunal towards injurres (grievous tnjuries and srmple injury) sustained by the appellant claimant is enhanced from Rs 42,000/- (Rs.40,OOO + 2,OOO) to Rs. 1,OO,OOO/-- The amounts grantcd by the Tribunal under others heads i.e., Its.2,0OO/ and Rs.2.OO0/ towards transportation and food and cxtra nourishment are cnhanced to Rs. 1O,OOO/ each. Further, considering the surgery, hospitalizaiion, implant/ external fixator and nursing, the amount granted by thc Tribunal towards medical cxpenses at Rs- 10,00O/- rcquires enhancement to Rs.SO,OOO/-. The amount granted by the Tribunal at Rs.2,59,200/- towards loss of earnings can bc maintained- Keeping rn view the trauma, mental and physic:rl shock {past and future), enduring disability, restrictcd moi.tility, loss of comfort, 'rn amount of v 5 Rs.2o,Oo0/ can be awarded towards pain and sufferrrr Thus' thc total compcnsation payabLe to the appetlant is tabulated a i under: ComP ? rsation Anuunt Name of the Head sl. No. I, 2. 3. 4. J 6 d and Extra Nourishment lnjuttcs Trarts1; ortatlon Foo Nleclical ExPenses Loss o[ Earnlngs Pair-r a.nd Su ffcring I Total Ilr t,00,o00 ts. 10,000 ts.10,0OO Rs.50,O00 r;.2,59,200 Rs.20,000 .4,49,2o0 ling off to ,5o,ooo/ -| II (Rou I Rs, z Thus. the aPPellant claimant Rs.4.50,000 / ' is entitled for lo ta't cr epensation of E. At ltris stage ' the learned Standing Counsel ir' ) 'caring for the lr_rsurance company submrts that the appellant-claim a rr had claimed S compensation, ani therefore' the only a sum of Rs-4'00'000/- qualltum o[ (:ompcnsation to be awarded cannot er':r ed the amount r:lirirned. l {orr ever ' in vrew of the judgments of the I trr'ble Supreme Cotrrr in Ld)<rrlrrt- @ Ldxmdn Mourya' Vs' Diui:i tnal Manager' orietltd.llnsurancecomP.,.ngLimitedandorctherlandln Nagappa Vs' Gtrrudagal Singh2' and considerin 3 thal the Motor Vehicles:\(rt is a bcneficial legislation intended to p-' lecl Lhe inLerest ' (2011) 10 sac 756 r 2003 Acl ll (5C) I ! : t i I I 6 oI cla,imants. the Courts are emporvcred to award just and reasonable Hence, the compensation cven in excess of the amount claimed appcllant rs entitted to a higher Compensation Lhan the amount origrnally claimed In the rcsult, this appcat is allorved and the compensation 9. awarded by the Tribunal is cnilanccd from Rs.3'15'2O0/- to Rs.4,5O,O0O/- with interest aL 7 5'% per anllum lrom rhe datc of petition till thc date of realization The appellant is directcd to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount' The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by Lhe Tribunal shalt remain unaltered No order as [o costs As a scquel, the miscellaucous pctitions pcrrding, if any sharll stand closed SD/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY S STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// CTION OFFTCER ! 3 1 ; , i I t t i I I I To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum da(with records) J udge at Nalgon VishwaruPa Cha ry, Advocate [OPU 2. One CC to Sri T V. Venkata Rami ReddY, Advocate 3. One CC to SRl. 4. Two CD CoPies ditional District loPUCl -w Kvr/Sa ''-1.- z'l ir - l,: 1,) 0 5 lti\R 2[26 :rli ;. rl HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.739 of 2019 ALLLOWING THE MACMA K9 ,l toP_PG [ 32e6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF DECEIV1BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 739 OF 2019 Between: Mandala Mallikarajuna, S/o. Ramulu, Aged 30 years, Occ: lorry Cleaner, Fl/o V.V. giri Nagar, Suryapet Town, presently residing at Gollaguda locality of Nalgonda town, Mandal & District AND ...Appellant 1 M/S V N S Transport, Rep by K. Srinivasa Naidu, PIot No.112, Flat No.'101, Capri Towers, Sri Nagar Colony, Hyderabad. 2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited,, Rep. by its Branch lVlanager, Branch Office, R/o. Sanghamitra Bank Complex, Prakasham Bazaar, Nalgonda Town, [\4andal and District. ... Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of IM.V.Act, against Order and Decree daLed 04-02-2015 passed in OP.No. 37 of 2009 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda. 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 argument of Sri T Vishwarupa Chary, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 and Sri V. Venkata Rami Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lt/lotor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be rnd is hereby Allowed by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.3,15, 100/- to Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 7.5'k per annum from the date of r rtition till the date of realization;

2. That the Appellant be and hereby is directed to pay t) rficit Court fee on the enhanced amount; 3, That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed ry the Tribunal shall remain unaltered;

4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sha I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY' SD/-V.JAWAHARREDDY AS!; STANT REGISTRAR \ \----z- \ecrtoru oFFrcER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Ac Citional District Judge at Nalgonda

2. Two CD Copies Kvr/Sa W HIGH COURT DATED:03/1212025 DECREE MACMA.No.739 of 2019 () :THTS ( Ia r6 o a * 5 r.iiq ) 0)r a .t ( o^tr^Hlt :-=- ALLLOWING THE MACMA t c>lzpe