The High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. 2 ...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No. 2 RtrHJ,l:ili',i,,!3:fl{};Br^:1Jr."1.,r,,?jfi Sg,1"3":,il3f B.Bal Reddy, S/o Nadioi R: 5*$";';r"it:',::'Ri5fl ;"[,":jri#;3igifl ,#;i,l_r,?il:,3:i^f g:H1fT8 R2-disd for default vide c.o. dt.24t2l1|. R2-Restored vide C.O. dt.22lgl1| ,,c,othBusiness ...RESPONDENT/RESpONDENT No. 1 I.A. No: 1 0F 2016 MACMA MP. NO: 519 0F 2016 Between: United lndia lnsu.rance Company Limited, Rep.by its Divisional Manaoer. urvrsonat office, Near Mayuri Hotdt, Goail; iiJ5al,ruir"r"o"a AND ...PETITIONER

1. Battu Vittal S/o Parvaiah aoed.91 years,.Occ: Agriculture cum Cloth Business R/o Bonata Vinase, Linsdmfiet rvrarioJ, lliiiijjriZi"oi'.i,r.t.

2. B.Bal Reddy, S/o Nadipi Raja Reddy' age-d. about 41 years, Occ' Agriculture - ;r;d;;;'of Tractor h/o (;ishnajiwioivittage. Tadwai Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...RESPONDENTS 3 Vemavarapu Sudhakar S/o Prabhakar, Aged 48 TSRTC Diive', Kamareddy Depo, Kamareddy, Nizam years, E.A.No. 33442, abad District

4. Telangana State Road Transport Corporatlgn- rep by its Depot Manager' famaieddy Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ...PROPOSED RESPONDENTS 3 & 4/RESPONDENTS PetitionunderorderlRulel0r/wSection,l5lCPCprayingthatinthe circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased implead the following parties ie ,

3. Vemavarpu Sudhakar, S/o.Prabhakar, Aged 48 Years, EA No 33442, TSRTC Driver, Kamareddy Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District 4. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation, rep by its Depot Manager, Kamareddy Depot, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District as respondents 3 and 4 in the aforesaid MACMASR No 40235/20'10'

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana Counsel for the Respondent No. 'l: Sri P. Radhive Reddy The Court delivered the following COMMON JUDGMENT HON'B LESMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI I.A.No. 1of 20L6 IM.AC .M.A.M.P.IiIo.51 9 of2ol6t IN AND M.A.C. M.A.No.l93 of 2016 COMMO N JUDG MENT 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal _cum Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kamareddy, in O.p.No.247 of 2OO9, dated 12.O5.2O10, the 2"d respondent in thc said O.p./Insurance Company preferred the present Appeal seeking to set_aside the order of the learned Tribunal

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the rearned rribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are rhat the petitioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg r/w Rule 455 of A.p.M.V.Rules, l9g9 seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the respondents Nos. 1 & 2 on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.O3.2O04. It is statecl by the petitioner/ injured that on 11.03.2004 at about 3.30 p.M., u.hen he along with one Uradi Balaiah were proceeding in Bus bearing No.Ap- I o-Z-3 62g from Yellareddy to Kamareddy and when reached in front of Sai Srinivasa Rice Mill, Devampally, one Tractor and Trotley bearing Nos.Ap-2S-T/ l474lF3a6O c:rme on the road in wrong side and which was driven by its clriver in a rash and negligent manner l i I.I! 2 MGPJ I A No 1 of 2016 in/and MA)MA.No.193 o12016 at high speed, dashed against their Bus' As such" the petitroner sustained crush injury on his right upper iip, upper hand, head injury and injuries to other parts of the body' [mmerdiately' he was shifted to Grlvernment Hospital at Kamareddy' fronr therc' he was referred to I'IIMS Hospital where his right arm $'as opcrated twice and was anlputated above the elbow' He further deposed that prior to accident, he was haie and healthy and userl to earn a sum of Rs. 15,000/- by doing Agriculture and cloth business Due to amputation of his right hand' the petitioncr is unable to attend to his work a.nd suffered from permanent disability and incurred tou,arcls medical exprlnses As the more than Rs 5,O0,000/ - accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor an<l Trolley bearing Nos'AP-2S-T- 1 4741F386O ' as such' he filed claim petition seeking compensation againsl respondent nos'1 & 2, being owner and insurer of the said crime Tractor and Trolley' Bef<rre the Tribunal' respondent No'l/orvner of Tractor- 4. Troliey beeLring Nos' AP-25-T- 1474 and AP-25-F 3860 remained ex- Respondent No.2 hled his counter denying the averments in the claim petition including' age' income' injuries sustained by the petitioner, medical expenses incurred by him and contended. that the occurrence of accident was entirelY due to negligenct: on part of Bus bearing No'AP- 10-Z-3b28' as such' the parte. 3 MGP,J l.A No.1 ot ZOt6 in/and MACMANo.t93 of 2016 petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non_joinder of said RTC bus as proper and necessary party to the pelition. 5. Based on the pleadings made by both parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the folloi.r.ing issues for conducting trial:_ (il (i, Whether the accident occuryed on 11.03.2OO4 at about 3.3O p.m. due to rash and negligent d.riuing of the Tractor Trottey bearing Nos.Ap_25_T_7474 altd AP-25-F-3860 by its driver? Whether the petitioner ls entitled for the compensation? If so, to Luhat amount and. from uthom? (iii) To u.that relief.

6. In order to substantiate his case, the petitioner/injured examined himself as pWl apart from examining pWs 2 & 3 and got marked Exs.A 1 to A i g and Ex. C 1 on his behalf. On behalf of respondent/Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced to rebut [he contentions made by the petitioner. 7. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal allor,r.cd the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs. 10,0o,000/- towards compensat.ion along with interest @ 7.5% per annum payable by respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the same, the rcspondent No.2 in the said M.V.O.P./Insurance Company preferrecl the present Appeal seeking to set-aside the order of the learncd Tribunal. -F!j 4 MGPJ lA No 1 of2016 n/ancl MACMA No 193 of 2016 B. During pendency of Appeal, learned counsel for the appellant alsolrledl.l..lof2ol6seekingthecourttoimpleadtheDriverand Depot Mana.ger of TSRTC, Kamareddy depot' Nizamabad district as respondent Nos.3 & 4 in the APPeal' g . Hearcl arguments submitted by Sri CH 'Venkata Narayana' learned StzLnding Counsel for the Appellant/ Insurance Company and Sri P.Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 /c1aim Petitioner'

10. The grounds raised by the learned Standing Counsel for Appellant/ lnsurance Company as stated in the grounds of Appeal are that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate tl-re fact that there was contributory negligence on part of both the vchicles i e ' RTC Bus bearing No.AP- lO2-3628 as well as Tractor Trolley bearing No.AP-25T- 14 7a lF-386O; it also failed [o consider trx A17-SSC certificate lor proving the age of the petitioner; it also failed to appreciate tire fact that the limit of liabillty in respect of any claim orseriesrfclaimarisingoutofoneclaimisRs'7'50'00O/-and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by setting zrside thc order of the learned Tribunal.

11. Per contra, learned Counsel for respondent No'l/injured contendecl that the learned Tribunal after going through entire 5 MGPJ LA Na 1 at 2Ot 6 n/and MACMA No 193 0f 2016 - evidence, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted

72. After hearing both determination is, sides, the point that emerges for Whether ttrc order passed bg the leamed Tribunat requires interference of this Court? POINT:- 13. This Court documentary, avaiiable has perused the entire evidence, both oral and on record. The first and foremost contention of the learned Standing Counsel for Hence, this Court is appellant/Insurance company is that the learned rribunal failed to see that there was contributory negligence on part of both the vehicles i.e., RTC Bus bearing No.Ap 102 362g as well as Tractor Trolley bearing No.Ap_25T_ 14 Z4 /F3B6O. inclined to delve into the said aspect for conclusion. A perusal of Ex.A 1_FIR shows that police of Devunipally police Station, Nizamabad police Station, registered a case in Crime No.31 of 2OO4 under Scctions 337 and 33g IpC, conducted investigation and liled charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of crime Tractor and Trolley bearing Nos.Ap_2S/T_ 1474 and AP-25/F-386O. Further, petitioner/ injured in his evidence deposed about the manner of accident ancl negligence of crime Tractor and Trolley. The said evidence is neither countered nor arriving at a correct I o MGPJ l.a No 1 ol2016 n/and MACMA No.193 ol2o16 rebutted by respondent /Insurance Company' Therefore from the oral evident:e of PW1 coupled with the documentary evidence hled underExs.,{l&A2,itisclearthattheallegedaccidenttookplace due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Traclor and Trolley. Hence, the contention of the learned counscl for appellant/ I nsurance Company that there wils contributory negligence on part of two vehicles i'e the Tractor and Trolley as well as BtLs in which the petitioner had travelled' is held to be unsustainztble. Thus, the learned Tribunal had arrived at a proper fincling which needs no interference' |4.AsthereisnocontributorynegligenceonpartofRTCBus bearing I'Io.AP- 10-2-3628, hence' I A 1 of 2016 filecl for impleadmr:nt of Driver and Depot Manager of TSRTC' Kamareddy Depot, Nizamabad district, AS respondents 3 & 4 shall stand accordi nglY d ismissed'

15.TheothercontentionofthelearnedStandingcounselfor lnsurance Company is that the learned Tribunal failed to consider Ex.A17-S{iC certificate for proving the age of the petitioncr' A perusal of trx.A 17- Copy of SSC certihcate clea'riy discloses thc date of birth of the petitioner as 12'O3' 1968' Hence' the petitioner was aged 35 years as on the date of accident' /'z 7 MGP-1 I A No 1 ot 2ola h/an.l MACMA No 193 of 2OtA

76. A perusai of para l l in the impugned judgment shows that the learned Tribunal by considering the annual income @ Rs.36,000/- and taking the petitioner,s rest of service as multiplier, awarded a huge compensation of Rs.9,72,000/_ under the head of loss of future earnings which is no way permissibre as loss of future earnings are caiculated by applying relevant multiplier and considering the percentage of disability. 77. To prove the percentage of disability, Ex.A4_Disability Certificate issued by District Medical Board Nizamabad District, clearly shows that the petitioner/ injured sustained 70% disability to his right hand. To prove about the same, he got examined pW2_ Orthopaedic Surgeon who treated the petitioner. pW2 in his evidence deposed that he treated the petitioner for the following injuries viz., (i) Grade 3C compound comminutecl fracture right humerous (arm bone) and (ii) compound comminuted segmental fracture both bones right crush injury of right upper limb and right forearm hanging with skin tag only. As the rimb is not viabre, amputation was done to his right hand above the right upper limb. He deposed that the above injuries are grievous in nature and therefore assessed his permanent disability @ 7O%. Hence, considering the above evidence and disability certificate, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby calculate loss of future earnings as under B MGPJ I A No 1 of 2416 in/and MACMA.Na 19i ot 2a16 Loss of future earnings= monthly income x percentage of disability sustained x 12 x relevant multiplier =3,OOOx7Oohx12x16 =Rs.4,03,20Ol-

18. Further, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. Rs.2O,OOO/- towards transportation charges; Rs.1,OO,O00/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1,OO,000/- tou-ards disability sustained by the petitioner- This Court finds the said amounts to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the samc. Hence, thc aopellant/ injured is entitled for a tota,l compensation of Rs.6,23,200/ -

19. l,earneC counsel for appcllant/ Insurance Oompany also contended that the learned Tribunal failed to deduct 1/3.d amount from the income of the petitioner. In this'regard, it is pertinent to state that Crduction of 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses arises only i:'i respect of death cases but not in injury case. Since thc Appeal isr all about an injury case, hencc, dedr-rction of 1/lra amount from the income do not arise. Therefore, tht: contention of the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company in this regard is uns rstainable.

20. It is pertrnent to state that though the learned counsel for appellant/ Insurance Company contended that the limit of liability ./ o MGPJ IA No 1 or20t6 h/ahd MACMA No ts3 ot 2016 in respect of any claim or series of claim arising out o[one claim is Rs.7,50,000/-, it failed to file any documentary proof to that effect nor filed insurance policy evidencing the same. Hence, this Court considers the said contention to be unsustainable.

21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Appeal is partly_ allowed by reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.10,0O,O0O/_ to Rs.6,23,2OOl_. Except the said finding, the findings arrived by the Tribunal regarding rate of interest and liability shall remain undisturbed and I.A.No. I of filed for impleadment of respondents 3 & 4 as necessary 2Q16, parties in the Appeal, shall stand accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22 Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/- . SREENIVASA REDDY A SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Motor Accident Judge at Kamareddy Claims Tribunal-Cum-Additional District and Sessions (with records, if any)

2. One CC to Sri Ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri P. Radhive Reddy, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies VH/gh HIGH COURT DATED: 2010312025 STATE o L) 1'] N\t 1\t1 t f, COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE l.A. NO: 1 OF 2016 (MACMAMP. NO: 519 OF 2016) IN/AND MACMA.No.193 of 2016 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS n IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI Between: MACMA NO: 193 0F 2016 United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by rts Divisional Manaoer ,,,','-"-" Divisonat office, Near rvrayuri notrit, Gilil; nJ5a,,rvi)lr"o;-;""' ANO

1. 2 ...APPELLANT/RESpONDENT No. 2 Battu Vittal S/o Parvaiah aged R/o Bonala Vilage, Lingampei rvra,ioar, r.r"JilJdla"5iitri"t. _31 years, Occ: Agriculture cum Cloth Business ft,[]1,fl,?i1,;,"f,],:?',-i5?;,ff District. j,fJ;5pii,il"li,I#il:f ff ',0g:h,JlT8 R2-disd for default vide c.o. dt.24l2l1S. R2-Restored vide C.O. dt.22tgt1| ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No. 1 Appeal fired under section 173 of MV Act against the order and Decree dated 12-05-20i0 in o.p.No.247 of 2009 on the fire of the court of the Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-Additionar District and sessions Judge at Kamareddy. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court and the materiar papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri ch. Venkata Narayana, Advocate for the appellant and of sri p. Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.

1. This Court doth OrCer and Decree as follows

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed by reducing the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. '10,()0,000/- to Rs' 6'23,200/-;

2.lhatthefindingsarrivedbytheTribunalregardingrateofinterestandliability I shall remain undisturbed; and

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal' SD/. A. SREENIVASA REDDY STANT REGISTRAR A \ //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \ Tribunal-Cum-Add itiy'nal District and Sessions \ 1 . The Motor Accident Claims Judge at KamareddY.

2. fwo CD Copies To, VH HIGH COURT DATED: 20t0312025 DECREE MACMA'No.193 of 2015 PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 22