The High Court · 2025

Counselfor the Respondent No.2 : SRI K A.rAY KUMAR The Court delivered the following: Judgment IN THE HIGH COURT F'OR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASI(AR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.N 2L9 of 2OL9 DATE: 03.12.2O25 Betweerg Mohd. IVahboob (a) Mahamood Akram .a Ii Khan and another JUDGM]}NT: AND .Appellant Respondents This appeal, under section lr3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 19gg, is filed :y the appellant-claimant challenging the award and decree dated 110.03.2018 passed in M.v.o.p.No.391 of 2oll by the Chairrnz.n, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additionat District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar (for short "the Tritrunal"), whereby compensation of Rs.10,01,o00/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum was awarded for the injuries sustained by the appellar t in a motor vehicle accident.

2. Ttre brief facts of the case are that on LT.o4.2o11 at about g.3o PM, the appellant-claimant was trave[ing as a passenger in an auto bearing No.AP-28-Y-8268, and near Durga Nagar.X Roads, Katedan, the said ailtfwhile overtaking another vehicle, hit another auto from I 2 the side, due to which, the appellant received grievous injuries to his right leg and other parts of the body. It is stated that the appellant rvas shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, underwent amputation surgery, and incurred substantial expenditure. A case in Crime No.22 | of 2O11 on the file of Sivarampally Police Station, was registered against the driver of the auto. The appellant filed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2O,O0,0OO l-.

3. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and awarded total compensation of Rs.10,01,000/- with interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed this appeal seeking enhancement.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the appellant's income at Rs.5,0O0/- per month instead of Rs.10,0OO/-; failed to add future prospects; awarded only Rs.1,50,000/- towards artificial limb despite Ex.A3 and P.W.3 proving the requirement of Rs.2,44,500/-, and awarded inadequate amounts under pain and suffering, incidental charges, extra nourishment, attendant charges, physiotheraPY, loss of amenities, and future medical expenses. It is further contended that the disability being 7Oo/o, the compensation should have been substantially higher I 3

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insuranc,: Company supported the impugned award and submitted that no eehancement is warranted.

6. Th,: hnding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver is supported by the FIR, charge sheet, and oral evidence. There is no basis to disturb the said finding.

7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the appellant suffered amputation of the right lower limb, underwent prolonged treaLment, and sustained permanent disability assessed at 7OVo. The Tribunal awarded Rs.7,56,000/- torvards disabiLity. Having regard to the nature of amputation, lifelong impact on earning capacity and mobility, the said arrount does not warrant interference and is confirmed. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards artificial limb. However, Ex.A3 and the testimony of P.W.3 establish that the prosthetic limb recommended costs Rs.2,44,5O0/-. Considering that an amputee requires, periodic refitting and replacements, the amount is enhanced to Rs.2.44,5O0/-. Towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/-. Considering the traumatic amputation, prolonged f ( hospitalization, multiple procedures, and perm€rnent disability, the said amount is inadequate and the same is enhanced to Rs.1,5C,0OO/-. Towards incidental charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2O,C00/-. Taking into account transportation, attendant support, \ \ .l \ \ To 4 special diet, diagnostic expenses, and follow-up visits, the same is enhanced to Rs.5O,O00/-. Apart from the above, the claimant is also entitled to compensation under additional heads which were not adequately addressed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded Rs.25,OOO/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.25,OO0/- towards attendant charges; and Rs.5O,O00/- towards loss of amenities and marital prospects. Thus the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 13,00,500/-.

8. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,O1,000/- to Rs.13,OO,500/- with interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shali remain unaltered. No order as to costs. a seque ,1, the miscellaneo us pe titions pending, if any, shall stand c1-9_s.-9d No order as to costs. SD'. M JAWAH AR REDDY TANT REGIS TRAR ,ITRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER 'l.Th"ChairmanMotorVehicleActTribunalCumVAdditionalD Sessions l rog', A;n gu R"OaV-D istrict(W it! l1TI9"' if any) 2. One CC to SniinOnfHpnr- fi,eOOV KASI REDDY, Advocate l 3. one CC to sRi ( ninv KUMAR' Advocate [OPUCI 4. Two CD CoPies istrict and loPucl o ADK I HIGH COTIRT DATED:03i/1 212025 ,E o Ll 10 tq[R ?[?E Ct A + )4 t 1. ogi;1,.6,;""i.. ., JUDGMEIIIT+DECREE MACMA.Drlo.2l9 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS [ 32e6 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYFIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 219 OF 2019 Between: Mohd. Mahboob, @ Mahamood, S/o Mohd. Maulana, Ag.ed 20 years, Occ- Driver, Rl/o. H.no.1 8:1 3-6/86/76, Chandrayangutta,Hyderabad. ...AppellanUPetiti on er AND

1. Akram Ali Khan, S/o Ayub Khan, Aged Major, Occ- Business, FVo H.No.3-130/ 11, Peddamanthal- Vlll, Pudur-Tq, R.R. District

2. The IFFCO-Tokio General lnsurance Company Limited,, represented by its Divisional Manager, ll Floor, Uma Chambers, Banajara Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/ResPonde nts Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.391 of 2011 dated. 20.03.2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Vehicle Act Tribunal Cum V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District. 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 JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI K AJAY KUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent No.1. This Court doth ()rder and Decree as follows:

1. That the \4otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed ly enhancing the compensation from Rs. 10,01,000/- to Rs. 13,00,50(l/- with interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain urraltered;

3. That savr: as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmecl in all other respects; and

4. That ther,= shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY STANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ ON OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Vehicle Act Tribunal Cum V Additional District and Sessions; Judge, Ranga Reddy District

2. Two CD Copies w'" t t' HIGH COLIRT DATED:03,/1 212025 DECREE MACMA.ltlo.219 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOU-T COSTS ),L I