The High Court · 2025

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPA.KA M.A.C.M.A.No.630 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT:- Being not satisfied with the quantum of t:r mpcn sation awarded in the award and decree, dated 04.08.20 [ I passed in M.V.O.P.No.1615 of 2009 on the file of the Add t onal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum XVI Additional Chiet J -rdge ,:um-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (ft r short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant preferred the pre';ent ,appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under The appellant hled a petition under Section .766. tf the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,0 ) )/- for the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that |,ccurred on

19.O4.2OO9. lt is stated that on that day, the appellarL; , akrng with others, were procecdrng in an Auto bearing No.AP 36\V 3385 and when the said auto reached near Yashwantpur, nr:r Lr Bhuvana Gardens, one motor cycle bearing No.AP 36 AB T/R ' 2842 driven by its rider in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the auto and due to which the driver of the au-r . who drove the auto in a rash and negligcnt manner at high speerl. lost control over the same the auto was turned turtle and the ag:pellarLt and 2 NBK, J MACMA_630 20 t 9 other passengers in the auto sustained grievous rnJuries. Basing a complaint a case in Crime No.13O of 2009 was registcred against the rider of the motorcycle as well as the driver of the auto Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Area Hospital, Jangaon and fiom there shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, Jaya Hospital, Warangal and NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, and at NIMS Hospital, the right leg of the appellant was amputatcd below the knee. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the rider of the motorcycle and driver of the auto and respondent Nos.1 and 3 being the owners of the auto and motorcycle and respondent No.2 being the insurer of both rhc vchicles, rhc claim petition camc to be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.. filed making all of them

3. The respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte,while the 2nd respondent filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim-petition.

4. A[ter analyzing the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the driver of the auto and the rider of the motorcycle were responsible for the accident and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.7,88,800/ as compensation to be paid by the respondents. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant. I l 3 NBK, J I\{.i,. VlA tri}0 20 l9

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly subrr IIts tfrat the quantum of compensation awarcied by the Tribunal is ( 1l lc,u'er side and seeks enhanccment of the same. Hc further sut,r-rits that the oral :lnd documentary evidence re vcal that the a J pellarrt had sustained 60% disability, thereby shc is unable to tl., her Iabour work and has lost her income at Rs.5,0O0/- per m,) rth, b'ut the Tribunal, without considering thc samc, has erroneoLL: Iy tak.en the income of the appellant at Rs.3,0O0/ per month : r d the refore , prayed to errharr,'e the compensation.

6. tn spite of service of notice, the re is no repr," r'n tation on behalf of the 1 st respondent/ owner of lhc crime vehicl,:

7. Per contra, the learned Counscl for the lnSural :e Company submits that the quantum of compensation au'a r led by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no i;tterlerence.

8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to tl.t manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either bv the owners or insurers of both th: r'ehicles.

9. The short question that arises for consideration is " u'hether the compensation atuarded by the Tribunal is iust and z'TuitabLe"?

10. A perusal of the material on record would sho.r that as per the clisability certificate, the appcllant had su ; ained 60o/o 4 \, - ,o"ro-ur{?5jj permanen[ disability as her leg was amputated below the knee and the same was certified by the doctor. 11 In order to award compensation in case of personal injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajag Kumar and. anotherl held as under: "5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniar5r damages (Special Damages) (r) Expenses relating to medicines, transportation, m iscellaneou s cxpenditu re. treatment, hospitalization, nourishing food, and Loss o[ earnings (and other gains) which the injured (i, would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) [.oss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) loss of future disability. (iii) Future earntngs on account medical expenses. of permanent Non-pecuniar5z damages (General Damages) (i") Damages for pain, suffering consequence of the injurics. (") Loss of amenities (and / or marriage). and trauma as a loss of prospects of (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compe will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It normal nsation is only ' vaco uot t 1sc;:: 5 NBK, J Nl ()NIA ()3O 20 19 in serious celses o[ injury, where there is spccilr rnt'rli<'it] evidence r:orroboratrng the evidence of the clairr rrttt, th:rt compensatiorr will bc gralted under zrny oI ttte l.rc t ls (ii)(l;), (iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of [utur(] cirr l rrgs ()n account of pt:rmanent disability, future meclic:rl ".ltenscs, loss of amenitics (and/or loss of prospects oI marr r. rge) zurd loss of expecl.ation of Lfe. Assessment o[ pecunial.r, , irn]ilg(,'s under item (i) ald under item (ii)(a) do not pr s. r.tttt:h difhculty (rs they involve reimbursement o[ actuiil i irnrl are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award t r rler the head of futurc medical expenses - item (iri) -- depc r 1s upon specific rnerlical evrdence regarding neerl for furth!'r treatment ard cost thereof. Assessment of non P, ( unial damages - items (iv), (v) and (vi) - involves dcterm r irtion of lump sum amounts with rcfcrence to circumstzrr ( 's srtt h as age, naturc of injury/ de privation/disability su I r'red lry the claimant and the effect thereof on the future itr o[ tlre claimalt. Decision of this Court and High Court i ( onlarn necessary guidelines for award under these r,';rds, if necessary. What usually poses some difficult.' is ttre assessment of the loss o[ futurc earnings on irt r ount ':lf permanent disability - item (ii)(b)."

12. In the ligl-rt of the principles laid down in thc i,1, rrenre ntioned case, it is sufhce to say that in determining th,' qiriintum of compensation pa],able to the victims of accident, n'hc are clisabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts should alr,. rrys be made to award adeqr-tate compensation not only for the 1rl ysir;al injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning, inirll it1 to lead a 6 NBK, J MACMA_630 20l s which would have been en.loyed acciden t. normal life and enjoy amenities, but for disability caused due ro the 13. As seen from the record, the Tplfosn2l awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,O00/_ towards pain and suffering Rs. I,5O,OO0/_ towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1,OO,O OO/_ for purchase of artilicial limb and Rs.3,88,800/- towards loss of earning on account of disability sustained by her. The Tribunal had not awarded any amount undcr the heads of loss of earnings during the period of Lreatment, attendant charges, extra nourishment and fuansporta[ion charges. I1- insofar as the amount awarded towards compensation under the head of loss of future income, the main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant claimed that she is earning Rs.S,OOO/_ per month but the Tribunal has taken the income of the appeilant at Rs.3,OOO/_ 15. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is that no document has been filed to prove the income of the appeilant. In Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Rayal Sundaram Alliance fnsurance Company Limited 2 , wherein the appellant was aged about 35 years and was working as coolie and was earning Rs.4,sOO/- per month way back in the vear l ( 201 lt l l SCC 2.i6 7 NBK, J I/t 'CMA 630 2019 20ll. Considering the law laid down by the Ape.< Court in the aforesaid judgment, this Court is inclined to take thr: income of the appellant at Rs.4.500/- per month. Admittedly, ttLt appcllant is aged about 25 years at the time of the accident anc n vie,,v of the judgment of Sarta Vertna Vs. Delhi Transport Corporations, the suitable multiplier to bc adopted lor calculatinll the ioss of earnings wouid be '1 8'. Therefore, the ioss of earnirLl s on ilccount of her disability woulcl be Rs.4,500/ - x 12 x 1t; x 601 1O0 = Rs.5,83,200/-. Admittedly, rhe appellant had takerl reatment in various hospitals i.e., Area Hospital, Jangaon, M.( j M. Hospital, Warangal, Jaya Hospital, Warangal and NIMS Hospirz l, Hyclerabad as inpatient and she also frled medical bi11s under E:<r,.A11 to A13. Consrdering the lac I that the appellant had taken [reatnlent in various hospitals for a considerable period, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs. 1,0O,O00/- towards medit:i-I exlrenses; Rs.25,000/ towards ex[ra nourishment; Rs.25,0C )/ towards attendant charples; Rs.27,000/ towards loss of earrrings during the period of treatment for six months at Rs.4,5O0/ - per month and Rs.20,00O/- towards transportation charges. Apart fr,:m the above, the appellant is also entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/ r oq,arcls pain and suffering and Rs. 1,5O,0OO/- towards loss of amen; -ies a.'varded by the Tribunal. Further, though the appellant llled trx.A7- \ ' 2009 ACJ 1298 8 ,o"ro-o.l?5ij quotation issued by Endolite India Limited for Rs.3,09,9OO/ towards the cost of artificial limb, the Tribunal awarded only Rs. 1,00,000/-. As per Ex.A7 the cost of rhe artificial limb is Rs.3,O9,9OOl_. The life of the limb is 5_6 years. The limb further requires repair after every 6 months, and the cost of repair is between Rs. 15,0O0/_ to Rs.2O,OO0/_. The Appeltant is aged only 25 years and will require the Iimb for the rest o[ her life, which would mean that the compensation awarded lor artificial limb at Rs. 1,OO,000/_ is inadequate. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.3,OO,0OO/ for purchase of the artificial limb instead of Rs.1,00,OOO/_ as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to Rs. 13,8O,200l_ rounded it off to Rs. 13,8O,000/-.

16. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the appellant claimed only a sum of Rs.l0,OO,O0O/_ as compensation and the quantum of compensation aw,arded would go beyond the claim made which is under Iaw which is now rmpermissi ble In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @) Laxm-q.n Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Ortental fnsurance 9 ,o,ro u.,f!5i3 Cornpang Limited and. anothey', and Nagappa Vs Gurud.agal Singhs tht: appellant is entitled to get more amount rI an $,hat has bcen cktimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act bcine a bereficial piece ol lcgislatior-r, where the interest of the clr rnartrr is a paramolrnt consideration the Courts should always e ndear. our to extend the ltenefit to the claimants to a just and reasor:1ble r.xtent.

18. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed by ent zrncing thc compensation liom Rs.7,gg,gO0/_ to Rs. l3,gO { {)O/_. Thc enhanced amoun[ u.ill carry interest at T.5o/o p.a. frorr the clzrte ol petition lill the date of realization, payable by responr cnts I to 3 jointly and severzLlly. The time to deposit the aforesai I a*ount is two months frorrr the date of receipt of a copy of thLr judgment. Hou,ever, thc appellant is directed to pay Deficit Cotrrr Fee cn the cnhanced antount. On such deposit, the appellant is 1 ermitted to withdraw th<: entire compensation amount without fur.r ishin.g any securirr. Thr.rc slrall be no order as to costs. Miscellancous petitions, if any, pending shall stan I closr_.d. //TRUE COPY// s E /- MOHD. ISMAIL , JTY REGISTRAR SE CTION OFFICER i I I To 1 2 J 4 The Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XVr Ar iitional chief Judge-cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyder ib;J. - "' One CC to SRl. JAGATHPAL REDDY KAS| REDDY, Advoc rte [OPUC] One CC to SRI. SRtN|VASA RAO VUTLA, Advocate [OpUo Two CD Copies CE/g h q-- n 'r, !i, ,' I HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 '.:qFrr" ()h I () (-) t ).[25 ()1: a\ Zl\ i:: ii JUDGMENT MACMA.No.630 of 2019 f 'i", .i' ALLOWING THE MACMAWITHOUT COS,-,T5. I l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDE NT CIVIL MISCEL LANEOUS APPEA L NO: 630 OF 2019 Between: Ketavathi Laxmi, Wo. Khandya, Aged 31years, Occ: Labour, R/o.Madhavaram Village, Hio. Somaja Kunt Tanda Rlaghunithapalty tr4anaat, Wrr;;g;f DLil;i Temporarity, Rto. iz -1 -3st2t A, Santn"osrrnigai iVo.iiijro. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. K. Santhosh Kumar,_S-/o. Jalapathi, aged major, Occ: Business, R/o.H.No.l _ 21 4, Madh av aram Vinage, na g h u nat6aprry_iii hoar, wi rlrgrt'oiitiiii.' "' 2 The BajajArlianz Genera-r-rnsurance company Limited, rep.by its Divisronar Manager 608 and 609, 2nd Btock, White Hbusi: eegu;bulJftio"-rrorai" '-'

3. V-Sturi Rod-.dy,S/o. Rayappa Reddy, aged major, Occ: Business, R/o. Nidigonda Vittage, Raghunathapaily_Mindal, Waiangat District. ... Respondents/Respondents Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act., against the Judgment and Decree dated 04 08.2014 passed in op no. 161st2oog on tre tte oithe court of the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-XVl Additional chief Judge-cum-ll Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, .. the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and ihe material [apers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri Kasireddy, Advocate for the App6rtant and None appeared for the Respondent No.1 and Sri V. srinivasa Rao, Advocate appeared for the Respondent No.2 and None appeared forthe respondeni no.3_ This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby allowed. 2. That the compensation enhanced from Rs.7,gg,B00i_ to Rs.13,g0,000/_ 3- That the enhanced amount wifi carry interest at z.so/o p.a.from the date of petition till the date of rearization ,payabre by respondents 1 to 3 joinfly and severally.

4. That the time to deposit the aforesaid is two months fron the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.

5. That the appellant be and is hereby directed to pay Delicit Courl fee on the enhanced amount. On such deposit, the appellant is hertby permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount without furnir;i inganv secr.rrity. 6 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ,TRUE COPY// A. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR \ \+.=--->- .-'**- SECTION OFFICER To: 1. The Additional tt/otor Accidents Claims Tribunra -cum-Xvl Additional Chief Judge-cum-ll Additional Metrcrf olitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies. ff,nn HIGH COURT DATED:1310612025 I I ,,'... 1 0r:i 2925 .,'. /' , ':. ' t . :1.' !'-'j i ,.t |,| 't! DECREE MACMA.No.630 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMAWITHOUT COSiTS. Lq ,,{ "t