The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is hled by the appellant/claimar t/petitioner under Section 173 of M.V.Act against the Award and dec -ee passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Ill Additio: rl District Judge, (FTC), Asifabad (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribu ralJ in O'P No 180 of 2O03, dated 25.O9.2006, seeking compensation t f Rs. 75,00O/- for the injuries allegedly received by the petitioner ir an accident that occurred on 15. 1 l.2OO2.

2. For convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as thev are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appe 1 ant/claimant f-rled M.V.O.P.No.l8O of 2O03 under Section 166 (1)(a) ar d Section 163 A of the M.V.Act, l988 read with Rule 455 of M.V. i ules l9B9 seeking compensation lor the injuries received in a mot rr vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent rr:lnner by the Lorry' lt is contended that on l5.ll.2oo2, the petitioner , ong with his friend i l were proceeding on his motorcycle from Kambojipr: a Village and when they reached near the outskirts of Kambojipeta I llage, drivcr of the I I i I 2 @J IIACUA llo.5ll olr(}4, lorry bearing registration No.MH-34-A-2053 came at high speed came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner motorcycle from opposite side, as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained fracture and grievous injuries all over the body' The petitioner was taken to Salya Vij ay Nursing Home, Mancherial' The police registered a case in crime No. 135 of 2OO2 against the owner of offending Lorry i.e., respondent No. 1.

4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that due to accident, the petitioner suffered compound fracture of right hand middle finger and fracture of 3ra and 4th M.c. joint and injures to other parts of the body and petitioner was completely bed ridden, for which petitioner suffered incurred huge expenditure and claimed an amount of Rs.75,000/- under various heads as compensation for the said accident'

5. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.l remained ex-parte' The respondent No.2 - United India Insurance Company Limited, filed a counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, avocation and income of the petitioner and submitted that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident and 3 EAJ UACXA Xo.5ll of2O2O further contended that the compensation claimec is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments n ade by both the counsels, the Tribunal framed the following issu t s which reads as under: i) Wlether the petitioner sustained injuies in the accic'<.tt oeured. on 15-11-2002 due to rash ond negligent diuing of the ehicle beaing No. MH34-A-2053 bg its driuer? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for ampensation't' If so, to uhat exlent and from uhom? iii) To tuhnt relieJ?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evide lce and going into the entire record and the evidence placed by bct r the parties, the Tribunal allowed the claim in part and grantec compensation of Rs.16,3OO/- along with interest @7.5% per annum

8. Being unsatished and aggrieved by tl.e mo; .ger compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, the present apt:al is liled on the ground that the Tribunal ignored the erridence placr: I by the petitioner, that the petitioner used to earn Rs.8,000/- per r lonth and due to accident and injuries sustained by him, the petitionr: was idle for about four months arrd was unable to do day to day affai r r i.e., unable to lift 4 !!B.J gac IA io. 5ll of 2c20 weights, drive two wheeler and also contended that claimants has lost his future prospects, but the Tribunal without taking into consideration of all the aspects has awarded an amount of Rs' 16'300/ - ' which is meager and not awarded just ald fair compensation and so also under other heads. g. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner and liability on the respondents. The petitioner sristained the following injuries: i) Commented fracture of proimal phalanx of right middle ftnger' ii) Other injures all ouer the bodg 10- karned counsel for the petitioner further contended that PW2- Doctor who treated the petitioner deposed before the Tribunal that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 15'11'2oO2 and discharged on 22.1l.2OO2 and treated tl.e petitioner's injuries more particularly right middle finger injury. PW2 also issued the disability certificate approximatel y 3Oo/o disability to the petitioner' Ex'A8 is hospital bill issued by PW2, which reveals that the hospital charged bitl of Rs.14,500/ - for towards hospitaliz'ation'

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded just compensation under other heads l 5 IEBJ IACIA 10.61l of 2OOrO i.e., pain and sufferalce, extra nourishment, transpo t charges, damage to clothing and article, loss of amenities, social rtatus, shock and mental agony, however awarded Rs.16'00O/- in totz [, which is meagre and prays this Court to enhance the compensation e mount awarded by the Tribunal.

12. l.earned counsel for the respondent No.2 ,ubmits that after considering the entire evidence available on recorc, the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no interfert nce.

13. In so far as respondent No. I is concerne,., the appeal was dismissed for default, before this Court in M.A.C 1{.A MP No.3678 of 2011, vide order dated 27 .O2.2O15.

14. Heard Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned coun s :l for the petitioner and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for th: respondent No.2- United India Insurance Company Limited. Perur;,d the material on record.

15. The respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the Award passed by the Tribunal. As such, there is no dispr-r.e regarding liability of the responclent No.1 and accident. The only pc,i rt that arose before this Court in this appeal is that: , 5 !!!EJ IAClf,A ro.Sl I of 2()2o i) Wlether the petitioner is entitted for the enlnnced comper$ation, if so, to what extent? Point No.1 16. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident on l5.ll.2}O2. The petitioner claimed that he was working employee in S.C.C., and drawing salary of Rs.8,000/- per month, however no salary certificate is frled by the petitioner to prove that his monthly income is Rs.8,OoO/- nor any documentary proof such as bank statement The Tribunai has presumed that petitioner might have taken rest for 45 days due to said accident and estimated 'loss of earning'in total Rs.8,000/- i.e., at the rate of Rs.4,000/- per montJr .The Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Latha Wadhtoo us. State of Blharr, where it is stated that in the absence of such documentar5r proof with regard to income of the petitioner and where there is no proof of income and earnings' the income can be reasonably estimated and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts, hence the compensation is granted b1 theTribuna]insofarasassessingtheincomeofthepetitioner(.1 Rs.a,000/- per month, which appear to be meager' This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner would obviously earn Rs'250/- Per day b-v working in S.C.C., or by doing any odd job accordingly' the petitioner 1 2001(8) scc 197 I / / I 7 EAd IACXA lo.5ll o, 2020 income can be notionally taken as RS.7,OOO/- per nontJr. The PW2- Doctor advised the petitioner to take rest for thre : months, which appears to be genuine, since the facture of any .r cund would take atleast minimal time to heel. Hence, this Court is opi-".on that petitioner is entitled to Rs.21,000/- (Rs.7000 x 3 months) towar( s loss of earning.

17. As per Ex.A2-wound certificate, shows that I etitioner suffered compound fracture to third finger i.e., fracture o ' third and fourth metacarpal joint and the Ex.A7-Medical Certifi: rte-cum-Disability certificate issued by PW2 sraring thar of 3O% dise I ility of left hand, however there is no mention in the Ex.A7 as to the di ;ability, whether it is of permanent in nature or partial and there is n,r discussion in tJre certificate how the doctor came to an conclusion that the petitioner has suffered 3O% disability. Hence, this Court is not inciir ed to consider the Ex.A7-Disaability Certificate for assessing the conr rensation towards future prospects. The Tribunal granted Rs.4,OOO/- towards grievous injury, which appears to be meager and enchan< r d the same from Rs.4,000/- to Rs.30,OO0/-, As far as Ex.A8-Hospital I tills, the petitioner enclosed bills for an amount of Rs. 14,500/-, horv:ver, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/- which appears to tr meager and ttris Court enhances the said amounr from Rs.6,000/- t( Rs. 14,500/_. The 8 I^CXA ro.6r r or:cZ-d riPJ Tribuna-l has not awarded any amount under the head of .damages clothing and articles', admittedly, the petitioner fell down due to impact of the accident artd the petitioner cloths may have torn or damage, hence this Court feel it appropriate to grant Rs. 1 ,OOO/ - towards compensation under the head of damage to clothing and articles,. Awarding of Rs'300/- towards transportation charges, this court do not interfere with the same. 18' on overall re-appreciation of the pteadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Honble Supreme court in the aforesaid cited decision l am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above ald given in the table below for easy reference. Hcad toss of earning f'.a"s6ro.t cna.giJ Medical Brlls One G rlevouS injury Damages to cloths & articlcs Total Amo unt arrtved at by the Tribunal Amount atrlve ad t by thla Court Rs.6.00O/- Rs 3OO/, Rs.6,oOO /. Rs.4,00O/- Rs.16,3OO/- Rs.21,OOO/- Rs.3O0/ - R!. r4,5oo/- R!.3O,OOO/- Rs.l,OOO/- Rs.66,A0,0 I - ,l hq*- * 9 !s!u ldAcIA f,o.sll of 2OrlO

19. As seen from the cause title, the case against resl ondent No. I was dismissed as tJle petitioner/appellant failed to : rmply with the conditional order dated 15. I 1.2010. However, the < ismissal against = respondent No.l/owner is of no consequence for the I :termination of a just, fair and reasonable quantum, in view of the judgr rent of this Court in Meka Chakro,. Rco Vs. Yelubandt Babu Rao2. IJ:nce, respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation amount to t re claimants and recover the same from the respondent No.1.

20. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in pa:- , enhancing the compensation from Rs.16,300/- to Rs.66,8OO/- u,ii r the interest of

7.5%o per annum on the enhanced amount from the I rte of petition till the date of realisation. The Respondent No.2-lnsur.; nce Company is directed to deposit the said compensation amount toge rher with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount alread I deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a cop_r :f this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to wi t rdraw the same. However, liberty is granted to respondent No.2 to initr .te proceeding for recovery of the apportioned amount lrom the respi rdent No.l-cum- owner ofthe offending vehicle. There shall be no ordet ts to costs. 'z zoor 1r;elr l9s oo 10 trIN.J f,ACXA ro.6tr or;dd

21. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, f *y, shall stand closed. Sd/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG AS STANT REGI //TRUE COPY// To, 'l . The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribuna Judge, (FTC) Asifabad.

2. One CC to Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [Op 3. One CC to Sri V. Srinivas Rao, Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies ucI CTION OFFICER ll Additional District S/kam A u, I I i r I I I ) l i , I I I \ A

7.1'l HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 =\t\E SI:i o 3 0 JA}l 20?$ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.SI1 ot 2020 ALLOWED.IN.PART (, 1 \v IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TEI.ANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3'143 ] FRIDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.No: 511 OF 2O2O Between: A. Jagadheshwar Reddy, S/o Sammi Redy, Age. 34 years, Occ: SCC Worker in 3 lncline Chennur Mine, Rl/o. Chennur, Adilabad District. ...APPE LLANT/PETITIONE AND

1. G. Satish, S/o Kanakaiah, Age Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. MH- 34-A-2053, Rl/o. Tandur, Adilabad district Restored vide Court order dated O9-1O-2O2O

2. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Balaji complex, Gangareddy Road, Mancherial, Adialbad District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the oder'and decree dated 25{9-2006 made in M.V.O.P.No.180 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, (FTC) Asifabad. 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 S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Srinivas Rao Vutla, Advocate for Respondent No.2. Thls Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1 6,30O1 to Rs.66,8001 with the interest of 7 .5o/o pet annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization; I I l

2. That the respondent No.2-lnsurance company is be i r d hereby directed to deposit the said compensation amount together with i r erest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if z r y, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

3. That on such deposit, the petitioner is be and hereby ermitted to withdraw the same;

4. That however, the liberty is granted to respondent No..t to initiate proceeding for recovery of the apportioned amount from the respo I tent No.1-cum-owner of the offending vehicle;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sh;r stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no oder as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. JI. OSMAN ALI BAIG A STi JTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER \

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal\r/n il Additionat District Judge, (FTC) Asifabad.

2. Two CD Copies To, AS&am N,, HIGH COURT DATED:2010612025 DECREE MACMA.No.S11 of 2020 ALLOWED.IN.PART