The High Court · 2025

Gounsel for the Appellant in MACMA No. 3314 of 20'18 and for the Respondent No. I in X-Objection No. 32 of 2025: Sri Sriniv;r: a Rao Vufla Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 in MACMA No. 3314 of 2018 and for the Cross Objector in X-Objection No. 32 of 2025: Sri Subbaga.i Sudarshan Reddy The Court delivered the following: COMMON JUDGMENT I THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO. 3314 ot 2O 18 & X-OBJECTI ONS No.32 ot 2025 COMMON JUDG MENT: MACMA.No.3314 of 2018 is filed by the lnsurance Company, aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 28.06.201g in I\I.V.O.P.No.'131 of 2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad (for short "the Tribunal") The claimant had filed Cross Objections No.32 of 2025.

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal is that on

05.12.2014 at about 4:00 p.m., the petitioner and his friend were going to Erraguntapally Village from tVlancheriyal town on a bike bearing No.AP-O15-7067, and on the way, at Bheemaram Village, a Bus bearing No.AP-01W-8631 came at a high speed being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said bike, as a result they fell down and sustained multiple fracture injuries. lmmediately, the petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital-Mancherial, thereafter to NIMS at Hyderabad for better treatment and that due to crush injury sustained in the accident, the -- x -__!tl \-l MACMA No. ', a_2O18 &XOgj 3)_2025 ETD,J 2 petitioners leg has been amputated. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1 5,00,000A. 4) The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denyi r 1 the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of tirr accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. rt is further contended that there was no negligence of the bus ciriver and tf at the accident occurred due to the sole negligenie of the bike ricr r and that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

6. Based on the above rival contentions, the Trit,r nal has framed the following issues:-

3. "Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting I lured of the petitioner due to any rash or negligent driving dt \ vehrcle i.e. Bus bearing No.Ap_11W_8631 Oi its AriverZ - Whether the petitioner is entiued to any compensati( 1 and if so. at what quantum and what is the tiability ot thi respc r tents? To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioner got examin{ d pWs .l to 4 and got marked Exs.A.l to A12. On behalf of the r:;pondents, no oral evidence was adduced. ETD,J MACMA No.3314-2018 & xOBi_32_2025 3

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.10,87,2601 Aggrieved by the said order and decree, the present appeal is preferred by the lnsurance CoJnpany

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

10. Learned counsel for the appellanUlnsurance Company has submitted that the claim awarded by the tribunal is very high and that the accident occurred when the vehicles were travelling in opposite direction and that the negligence of the rider of the motor bike has to be considered and that the tribunal failed to consider the same. He further argued that the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.6,0001 per month, without there being any proof, and it is contended that the petltioner was a Barber and in the absence of any proof, only notional income can be taken and thus, prayed to reduce the same. He further prayed to reduce the rate of interest from 9% to that of 7.5%

11. Learned counsel for the Cross Objector/respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner has suffered amputation to his leg above knee and that he sustained 90% disability as ETD,] MACMANo.I:1 _2018 & xOBj-32 2025 4 'a.. \ certified by the District Medical Board and that they ;ould prove the same through the disability certificate and the evide,r ce of PW2. He further argued that the tribunal has considered only I 0% disability in assessing the loss of future earnings without assig r ing any proper reasons. He further argued that the appellant has r tt disputed the disability in his cross examination and that the 1r ounal failed to consider the said aspect and has awarded very low compensation. He further argued that though the petitioner is Bar:-.r by caste, he nowhere stated in his pleadings that he was working ls a Barber, he infact is a Hardware Consultant and that though he r rs not filed any proof, atleast Rs.9,000/- per month can be assessel as his income. But the tribunal has taken only Rs.6,000/- per monll and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation. He further i rgued that the interest granted by the tribunal is at the rate of 9% rer annum and the same may be upheld.

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Cr urt frames the following points for determination:- 1 . Whether the compensation granted by the Tnt tnal is just and reasonable?

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the f ibunal need any inteierence?

3. To what relief? ETD,J MACMA No.3314_201E & xOBj_32_2025 5

13. Point Nos.1 & 2: a) The appellanUlnsurance Company is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation saying that it is very high and prayed to reduce the same, while the claimant prays for enhancement of compen sation. b) The case of the claimant before the tribunal is that he was a Hardware Consultant and sustained 90% disability due to the amputation of his leg, above knee. ln support of his case, he got examined PW2 and 3. c) PWZlDr. A. Aravind, is an Assistant Surgeon in Area Hospital, Mancherial and a Member of District Medical Board. His evidence reveals that the petitioner attended the SADAREM Camp at Government Area Hospital and that they have issued Ex.A1O/disability certificate, stating that he suffered 90% disability due to the amputation of right leg above the knee in the said accident. Nothing material was elicited to dislodge his evidence d) PW3/Dr.K. Nageshwar Rao, is an Assistant Professor in Orthopedic Department at NIMS Hospital, his evidence reveals that he treated the petitioner. The petitioner was admitted on 06.12.2014 for the following injuries i.e., 1) Grade-lll-B compound fracture ETD,J MACMA No.:l 4_2018 & xOBj-32_2025 6 Rt.Femur,2) Grade-lll-B compound fracture Rt. Frtximal tibia and distal tibia, 3) Closed proximal 3'd rt. Ulna fracture distal radios, 4) Grade-lll compound 3'0,4tn, 5th meta carpal fractu.,rs Rt. hand and head injuries. His evidence further reveals that flt, r petitioner was operated on 07.12.20'14 by conducting above knrl I amputation of right lower limb and the other fracture injuries were t eated by nailing and implants. ln his evidence, it is elicited that Ex.r\ l and 41 1 were issued by their hospital. Nothing material was elicite, to dislodge his evidence. Thus. the petitioner must have undergone acute pain and suffering due to the said injuries and thus, an amount of Rs.'l ,00,000/- is awarded towards pain and suffering. e) PW41P. Rajkumar is the Assistant Registrar ir , Biiling Section of NIMS hospital, through him it is elicited that the p,: itioner has paid an amount of Rs.45,760/- towards inpatient bill in :l e first instance i.e., on 06.122014, and again he was admitted on 2.01 .2015 and discharged on "14.0.20'1 5, when he has paid an amoL rt of Rs.3,0751 . Ex.A'l 'l and bills at Serial Nos.6'l and 62 are tie medical bitts issued by their hospital. f) A perusal of Ex.A7IMLC record shows that rt i ; issued by the duty medical officer at Government Area Hospitar, I\1 rncheriar which discloses that the petitioner sustained firre grievous injuries in the r.--- ETD,J MACMA No.3314_2018 & XOBj 32_2075 7 accident. Ex.AB is the discharge summary issued by NIMS hospital, which shows that he was admitted on 06.12.2014 and discharged on

19.12.2014 in the first instance and again he was adniitted on

12.01 .2015 and discharged on 14.01.2015, which is disclosed bythe second discharge summary. Ex.A10 is the disability certificate revealing that the petitioner sustained 90% of permanent disability due to post traumatic amputation of right lower limb above knee. He has also filed few bills under Ex.A1 1. lt is already elicited from the evidence of PW3 that he has paid Rs.45,7601. S) PW1 asserted that he was working as a Computer Hardware Consultant at Mancherial town and was earning more than Rs.10,0001 per month, but he has not filed any document to prove the same and no witness also was examined in this regard. His age as revealed from the disability certificate is 26 years in 2015, so he might have been aged 25 years as on the date of the accident. He has also not filed any documents to show his qualification to hold that he worked as a Hardware Consultant, except for his self serving testimony, nothing is available on record to hold the same. However, considering his age, it is held that he might have been into some avocation to earn his living MACMANo.3314 :( i8 & xOBj-32-2025 ETD,-I .\ 8 h) ln Ramachandrappa Vs' Manager' Roye'l Sundaram Alliance lnsurance Company Limitedl' the Apex ()' 'urt has held that in the absence of any proof of income with regarc o a labourer' Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the incorr : But' in the present case, the sole contention of the petitioner is hat he was a Hardware Consultant' Therefore' on a reasonable I ypothesis the income of the deceased is assessed as Rs'6'000/- per month' ln case of permanent disability' loss of earning; for a period of i) one year is awarded' Therefore' an amount of t{ ;72'0001 i'e (Rs.6,000i- x 12) is awarded under the head loss of e ; rnings' ' j) The compensation towards medical expenses s assessed by thetribunalinacorrectperspective,awardingtot:rlbillamountof Rs.2,58,2001. Hence, the same is upheld' awarded onlY k) However' towards transportation' he was ;iven, the same Rs.2,000/- and for extra-nourishment Rs'3'000/- are are found to be very low' During the yeat 201t, the petitioner suffered amputation for which he had to stay in lt e hospital for a period of 13 days in the first instance and 3 day; in the second instance that means altogether around 16 days h(r /vas hospitalized in*bl4lerabad, while he belongs to Mancherial tl I requires some r(2oll)12scc236 - ETD,I MACMA No.3314_2018 & xOBj_32_2025 9 sort of a transportation from Mancherial to Hyderabad. Therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards transportation and during the period of stay in the hospital, he must have required an attendant. Therefore, another amount of Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges. Since he suffered amputation, he must have been on special diet during the period of recovery. lt is opined that he must have taken around 6 months atleast for recovery from his injury and amputation. Therefore, an amount of Rs.'12,000/- is awarded towards extra-nourishment i.e., (Rs.2,000 x 6 ). Another amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards incidental expenses. Thus, in all the petitioner is awarded Rs.3,30,200/- (Rs.2,58,200 + 20,000 + 20,000 + 20,000 + 12,0001- ) under the head medical expenses, transportation, extra-nourishment, attendant charges and incidental expenses. l) The loss of future earnings have to be awarded as per the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kuma/. The disability certificate under Ex.A10 discloses 90o/o of the disability to the petitioner which is scaled down to 50% towards the whole body and the same is taken as the loss of earning capacity. The age of the petitioner is'26 years as per the disability certificate under Ex.A10 and the same is taken into consideration. Therefore, adding 40% 'zot t 1lo; scc :+: EID,J MACMA No 3 ] 1-_2018 & xOEl_32_2025 10 towards future prospects, the monthly income woul,j be Rs.6,0001 x 40o/o Rs.2400 which comes to Rs.8,400. Th: loss of future earnings would be Rs.8,400 x'12 Rs.1,08,000x50%x18= Rs.9,07,2004 m) ln all, the petitioner is entitled to the followirr ; compensation amou nts: ? 3 4 , r r Compensation under the head 'injuries, : shock, Pain and suffering Loss g! eq11!99 Loss of fulq1e ga_rlings , Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, el:tra-nourishment and other lncj{ettel glpenqqq Total 1,00,000/- ' 72,099- : 9,07_,2001: : 3,30,200/- 't4,o9,400t- n) Therefore, the compensation to which the peii ioner is entifled is calculated as Rs.14,09,400A while the Triburrl has granted Rs.10,87,260/- Thus, it is held that the petitiono is entifled for enhancement. of compensation. Hence, point N: 1 is answered accordingly.

14. Point No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, it is held that the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modifir: I with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the - ETD,I MACMA No.3314_)018 & XOBj_32_2075 11 compensation to Rs. 14,09,400/- from that of Rs.10,87,260/- that is awarded by the Tribunal. b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 9% on the quantum of compensation and the contention of the counsel for the lnsurance Company is that it is too high. c) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Anothef ; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5o/" per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation. d) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath Suresh and Othersa and National lnsurance Company Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Otherss; also interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation. e) ln United lnsurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiahi; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9o/o per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. r 2022 SCC Online TS 606 4 2023 SCC Online TS t095 5 2023 SCC Onlinc TS I I70 6 2024 SCC Ontine',fS 915 I- \. MACMA No 3I 12018&xOBj-32 2025 ETD,I t2 \-. \ -*qtU _l <i.. 0 A Division Bench of this High Court in Nai'itna! lnsurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish PrajapathiT; ras granted 7.5 % per annum on the compensation fr-om the dat I of petition till realization. S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decir ions, this Court has been consistently granting interest @ 7 .Syo on t r : compensation that is awarded in such cases. h) Hence the same is awarded in this case also.- hus, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of I 5%. Point No.2 is answered accordingly

15. Point No.3:- ln the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3314 of 2C.B and Cross Objections No.32 of 2025 are parfly allowed, mociying the Order and Decree dated 28.06.2018 in M.V.O.p.No..l31 of I 015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cur _Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.10,87,260t- to Rs.14,09,401 _. The rate of interest is reduced from go/o to 7.5% per annum f r ,6 16" date of claim petition till rearization. However, the interest 1( r the period of ? 2024 sCC online't's 2o5o MACMA No,3314_2018 & XOBj ETD,J 32 2025 13 realization. However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two months f;-om 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. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6- //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, l.TheMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum-XllAdditionalChiefJudge,City Civit Court at Secundrabad. (with records, if any) 2. One GC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Subbagari Sudarshan Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 -* a::- -..7".; +, . .:. - q\1..1r- . , i \\i' 0 i il'13' COMMON JUDGMENT+ DECREE MACMA.No.3314 of 2018 & X-OBJ No. 32 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMA & X.OBJECTION WITHOUT GOSTS I \, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MACMA NO: 3314 OF 201 8 & X-OBJECTTONS NO. 32 0F 2025 MACMA NO: 3314 OF 2018 Between: United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, rep. by its Manager, T. p. Department, Posnett Bavan, Tilak Road, Ramkote!, Hfderabad AND 1 Sateesh Vishnubhakthulas s/o Begumpet, Seundrabad. Gattaiah, 23 yrs., R/o. 1-38-1821, ...APPELLANT/RESP.2.

2. Sarojana A., wo. Narasaiah, age-makor, owner of "r,.;:;t:,::t#Ttl 12-640, Hanumannagar, Reddy Colony, Mancheriyal, Adilabad dist_ ...RESP/RESP-1 3 APSRTC Rep. by its Managing Director, RTC Cross roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad ...RESP/RESP-3 (R-3 not necessary) X-oBJECTTONS NO.32 0F 2025 Between: Sateesh Vishnubhakthulas s/o. Gattaiah, 33 yrs., Occ: Computer Hardware, Presently Rl/o. 1 -38-1 82 1, Begumpet, Seundiabad. ...CROSS APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT/CLAIMANT AND 1 2 United lndia lnsurance Co. Ltd, Church Building, Posnett Bavan, Tilak Road, Ramkote, Hyderabad-500001 . ..,RESPONDENT/APPELLANT Sqrojana A., w/o. Narasaiah, age-Major, Owner of Crime vehicle, R/o.H,No- 12-640, Hanuman Nagar, Reddy Colony, Mancheriyal, Adilabad dist.

3. APSRTC, Rep by its Managing Director, RTC Cross rcE Hyderabad ' ls, Musheerabad, ...RESP/RESP.3 Respondent No. 2 and 3 not necessary parties in this a5 5 3al Appeal Under Section 1 73 of Motor Vehicles Act and Metr Objections Under Order XLI Rule 22 of C.P.C against the or M.V.O.P.No. 131of 20'15 dated 28-06-2018 on the file cf Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- x rrandum of Cross ler and decree in the Court of the I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon perus r g the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and th ) material papers in the OP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Sri r vasa Rao Vutla, Advocate for the Appellant in MACMA No. 3314 of :l 18 and for the Respondent No. 1 in X-Objection No. 32 of 2025 and )f Sri Subbagari sudarshan Reddy, Advocate Respondent No. 1 in MACMA ,lo. 3314 of 2018 and for the Cross Oblector in X-Objectron No. 32 of 2025 at i None Appeared for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 rn both. This Gourt Doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACIVIA No. 3314 of 2018 and Cross Objecti: rs No. 32 of 2025 be and hereby are partly allowed, modifying the Order rnd Decree dated 28.06.2018 in lV.V O.P. No. 131 of 2015 passed by tlr Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Jud1l ,, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, by enhancing the compensation fron Rs.10,87,260/- to Rs.14,09,4001;

2. That the rate of interest is reduced from 9% lo 7.5o/o 7t< r annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That however, the interest for the period of realization, 4. That however, the interest from the period of delay, if any is forfeited; 5. That the respondents be and hereby are direckx to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a per od of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment a ter deducting the amount if any already deposited; 6 That on such deposit, the appellant be and hereby is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

7. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

8. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR L7 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secundrabad.

2. Two CD Copies VH/PSL HIGH COURT DATED: 2610812025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.33I4 of 2018 & X-OBJ No. 32 of 2025 PARTLY ALLOWING BOTH MACMA & X-OBJECTION WITHOUT COSTS +' \)v