G Ashok v. 1. B. Venu

Counsel for the Appellant:Sri. T Vishwarupa Chary Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri A V K S PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent No.2: The Court delivered the following: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF T'I )LANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BIIASKAF REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.619 of 2OL9 DATE: O3.12.2O25 Betwee n: G. Ashok B. Venu and another JUDGMENT: AND Appellant . ..Respondents This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motc r Vehicles Act, 1988, is flrlcd b_v the appcllant-injured challenging t re award clated

31.12.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2O7O of 2O1O br the Chairman, MACT-cum-XIV Aclditional Chief Judge (FTC), C t , Civil Courts, Hyderabad ([or short "the Tribunai"), whereby the Tr bunal aw-arded total compensation of Rs.46,0OO/- with interest @ 7 srk per annum for the injuries sustaincd by him in a motor vehicle i cciclent.

2. The brief facls of the case are tha[ on 22.01 2O10 at about

06.00 P.M., the appcllant along with his relative-lr allesham, v,'as proceeding on a scooter towards a shop in Mulkarr l alli Village and when they reached thc bus stop, a lorry bearing No...P 07 TU 7575, --- 2 driven in a rash and negligent manner from Jagadevpur side, hit their scooter from behind, due to which, both fell down on the ground. It is slated that the said Mallesham succumbed to injuries on the spot ald the appellant sustained fracture of shaft of the lefl humerus, fracture of the collar bone, chest injury, multiple abrasions and other injuries. It is further stated that the appellant was initially shifted to the Government Area Hospital, Bhongir and later to Gandhi Hospilal, Secunderabad. A case in Crime No.31 of 2Ol0 undcr Sections 304-A and 337 IPC was registered by Thurkapally Police Station against the lorry driver. The appellanl Illed the aforesaid claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,O0O/- on account of the injures received by him.

3. The rcspondenl No.l-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-lnsurance Company hled a counter denying the manner of accident and contended that the claim was excesslve

4. On apprecia[ion of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver ar-rd that the crime vehicle was insured with respondent No.2 and accordingly, awarded compensation of Rs.46,O00/- with interest (A 7 -5o/o per annum. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the appellant hled the present appeal. 3 5, Learned counsel for the appellant subnr :s that P.W.2- Orthopaedic Surgeon who treated the appellant clearly deposed lhat the appellan r suffered fracture of the shaft ri left humerus with multiple abrasions, that implants were inser,r d, that rcmoval of implants would require about Rs.25,OOO/-, and that the permanent partial disability was in the range o1 l5o/,r2Oo/o. lt ts submilted that the Tribunal failed to consider diszLl ,ility and future medical expenses, thereby awarding inadequate co r pensation.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for r: ;pondent No.2_ Insurance Company submits that the compensaL tn awarcled by the Tribunal under various heads is just, r:asonable and proportionate to the injuries actually proved, and hus prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 7 . The finding of the Tribuna_l regarding the mz r ner of accident has attained finality, as neithcr the owner nor i:-r s rrer challenged the same

8. Coming to [he quantum of compensatiorr the Tribunal granted compensation under pain and suffering, transportation, extra nourishment, medical expenses and loss of e:L: nings, totalling Rs.46,O0O/-. However, from the medical evidenct, of p.W.2, it is clear that the appellant sustained major fracture itr uries requiring ORIF, with permanent partial disability assessed a l5o/,,_2Oo/o. and \ \i -_^,='< 4 that he would need removal of implants at an approximate cost of Rs.25,O0O/-. The Tribunal did not consider disability or future - medical expcncliture. The nature of injuries, period of hospitalization, the fracture of humerus ald collar bone, and the long-tcrm impacL on functional capacity warralt a reasonable enhancement. Having regard to the evidence, an additiona,l sum of Rs.1,0O,000/- towards future medical expenses, removal of implants, and the consequential pain, suffering and functional limitations is considered just and proper. Thus the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 1,46,000/-.

9. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.46,000/- to Rs. 1,46,000/- with interest @

7.Sok per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The rest of the tcrms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shail remain unaltercd. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellancous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL PUTY REGIS CTION OFFICER Additional Chief //TRUE COPY// To, '1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Clatms Tribunal cum Xl Judge. (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad (with records) 2. One CC to Sri T Viswarupa Chary, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to Sri A V K S Prbsad, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies Sa/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.6f g of 20f 9 '. .r i i: i; i i: \r. [ : itl,li ?$i$ | ' , ,!. '-1!,. APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED Jrcs rofzfze \ [ 32s6 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE OUS APPEAL NO: 619 OF 2019 Between: G. Ashok, S/o Late Ramachader, Age: 21 years, Occ: Labourer, Coolie, H.No.1-3- 643/1, Kummari Bhsthi, Kawadiguda, Hyderabad. AND

1. B. Venu, S/o Amjameyulu, Age: 40 years, Occ. Business, R/O. H.No: 6-65/1, ...Appellant Narakoduru Village, Chebrolu llandalam, Guntur District

2. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Divisional tvlanager, DO-IV, D.No.6-2-976, I Floor, Pavani Estates, Khairathabad, Hyderabad. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 41 of CPC, against Order and Decree dated 31-12-2012 passed in M.V.O-P.No. 2O7 0 of 2010 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XIV Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad 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 argument of, Sri. T Vishwarupa Chary, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri A V K S PRASAD, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 and none appeared for the Respondent No.2 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.46,000/- to Rs.1 ,46,0001 with interest @ 7.syo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization,

2. That the terms and conditions imposed by the tribunal shall remain unaltered,

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal ;D/- MOHD. ISMAIL t)l iPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// I I l SECTION OFFICER To, '1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum XI\ \dditional Chief 2. Two CD Copies Judge, (Fast Track Court), Hyderabad Sa/PSt v? HIGH COURT DATED:0311212025 -a.i 1 t1. E SIn t a- ilrfl 2l.]?fi + I patcH DECREE MACMA.No.619 of 2019 APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED JFs rol>l>e