The High Court · 2025

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTTCE TTRUMALA Dt:Vt EADA M.A.C.M,A.N 0.46 0F 2021 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant, aggriev(), I by the Order and Decree dated 03.04.2008 in O.p.No.17 of 200,, passed by the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cunr-vil Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short ,Ihe Tribunal,, .

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

3. The case of the petitioners before the tribtr ral is that on

16.10.2006 the petitioner and another person were c( ing on a Hero Honda motorbike bearing No.Ap-22-K-gB0B on Courl Duty to serve summons and while on the way, at around 7:30 p r r., when they were near Vetro Tex Company on NH_7 in Thimni pur Limits an Eicher Van bearing No.Ap-'I2-V-5 472 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed he motor bike from behind, due to which the petitioner and the pilliorr 'ider fell down and sustained injuries. lmmediately, he was shifted I > hospital, for treatment, he sustained permanent disability and ilr rs, claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/-. 2 ETD,J MACMA No.46 2021

4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed counter denying the averments of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. rt is further contended by the respondent No.2_lnsurance Company that the driver of the crime vehicre did not bear varid driving ricense and that their company is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial: i) ii) ,,Whether the accid.ent occurred on 16.10.2006 was due to rash and negtigent driving of the driver of Eich", i",i OJJrirg tuo.Ap_22_V_ 5472? Whether the petitioner is enti ed to To what relief?', 6 To prove their case, the petitioner got examined pWl and got marked Exs.A1 to 44. On behalf of the respondents RW1 examined and Ex.B1 was marked.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.18,000/_. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the craimant seeking enhancement of compensation. 8 Heard the submissions of Sri K. Venkatesh Gupta, learned the appellant. No representation on behalf of the counsel for resf6ndents 1 3 ETD,J MACMA No.46 2021

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has subr itted that the Tribunal has faired to appreciate the evidence on r.cord and has awarded very meager amount towards compensatir n. He further argued that he has produced all the evidence to prr: re the injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment underwr nt by him, but the tribunal failed to appreciate the same. He further : -gued that the tribunal has not awarded any amount for the pair and suffering underwent by the petitioner and also that the petiticr er was being shifted to Raghavendra Hospital, Rajendranagar and rom there he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital and thus, has inr; rrred amount towards transportation charges and also during t re period of recovery, the petitioner has incurred expenses .i r his extra_ nourishment, attendant charges, but the tribunar faired 1 r consider ail these aspects and has not awarded any amounts under these heads. He therefore, prayed to consider the same an,j enhance the compensation.

10. Based on the above contentions, this Court frames the following points for determination: 1 2 3 Whether the clainant compensation? is entitled to enhancc r ent of Whether the order and decree of the Tribunat t ed any inteierence? To what relief? 4 ETD,I MACMA No.46 2021 {

11. POTNT NO.l: a) The claimant herein is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. He contended that the tribunal has granted meager amount and thus, prayed for enhancement. b) ln support of his case, the petitioner has filed lnjury Certificate under Ex.A3 and the Medical Bills under Ex.A4. c) A perusal of the lnjury Certificate under Ex.A3 reveals that it is issued by Yashoda Hospital on 02.12.2006, wherein it is certified that the petitioner was admitted in yashoda Hospital vide

1.P.No.08509 as he sustained polytrauma with head injury in a road traffic accident and that the General Surgeon/Dr. B. Mahender Reddy and Dr. Y. Venkatesh have treated him and that the petitioner was admitted on 17.10.2006 and discharged on 21 .10.2006 and the injuries sustained by the petitioner are fracture in first proximal phalanx and thdt it is grievous in nature. Ex.A4 are copies of medical bills filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed copies of essentiality certificate and also the photo stat copies of the medical bills before the tribunal. Admittedly the petitioner herein is a Home Guard, thus his medical bills are taken care of by the concerned Police Department and therefore, he cannot claim the said amounts before jle tribunal. Therefore, the tribunal has not granted any such 5 ETD,I I IACMA No.46 2021 amounts towards the medical expenses. However, t te petitioner must have incurred some incidental expenses tc I tards extra- nourishment, transportation, attendant charges. d) A perusal of the record reveals that the tribunal ras awarded Rs.3,0001 towards loss of earnings of the petitione' Rs.'10,0001 towards medical expenses and has awarded Rs.S,t) )0/- towards pain and suffering. Ex.A3 discloses that the petitiort r suffered a fracture injury which is grievous in nature, Ex.A3 furll rer discloses that he was admitted on 17.10.2006 and 21.10.2006. -hus, he has undergone inpatient treatment for a period of about or : week, thus the petitioner might have underwent a lot of pain and s,r fering during the period of treatment and also till his recovery. Cr> rsidering the said facts and circumstances, it is opined that Rs.25, )00/- can be granted under the head pain and suffering to the p,r ,titioner. The accident site is NH-7 near Thimmapur Village and lt e petitioners case is that initially he was taken to Raghavendra Hosl ital and from there, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital. Ex.A3 proves the inpatient treatment of the petitioner at Yashoda Hospit: , that means he must have incurred some amount towards transportr rtion charges and also for recovery of a person from a fracture injury, it would take a period of atleast three months. For all these three m<r rths, he must have incurred some expenditure towards the extra-no.t -ishment and 6 ETD,J MACMA No.46 2021 also attendant charges in addition to the incidental expenses Thus' considering all these aspects, an amount of Rs'25'000/- is granted under the heads, transportation, attendant charges' incidental expenses and extra-nou rishment ' e) With regard to the loss of earnings, he is a Home Guard and his leave pay shall be compensated by the department and he will not sustain any loss of pay Though he pleaded that he sustained disability, no evidence is placed on record' hence' no amounts are awarded under this head' Therefore' it is held that petitioner is entitled to Rs.50,000/- towards compensation' while the tribunal has awarded Rs.18,0001. Hence, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation' Point tlo.1 is answered accordingly' 1L Po int No.2:- ln view of the finding arrived at Point No 1, it is held that the orderanddecreeoftheTribunalneedtobemodifiedwithregardto the quantum of compensation' This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.50,0C0i- from that of Rs'18'000/- that is awarded bY the Tribunal' : Point No.2 is answered accordingly' a" :7

13. POTNT NO.3: 1 ETD,] MACMA No.46 2021 In the result, the appeal is parfly allowed, mocli ying the Order and Decree dated 03.04.2008 in O.p No.17 o,f 200i, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal_cunr_VIl Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar, by enhancing the conr tensation from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.50,0001 and the enhancec amount of compensation shail carry interest @ 7.50/o per annurr from the date of claim petition tirr rearization. However, the interest tt r the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The respondents are directec to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within ;r period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this J rdgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On slrr h deposit, the claimants are entifled to withdraw the said amount wilr out furnishing any security. No costs. [\Iiscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in thir; appeal, shall stand closed \ To, //TRUE COPY// SE I- A.V.S. PRASAO DI: ,UTY REGISTRAR .,,.-- .-.,, I ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vl Additional District Judge( FTC) Mahabubnagar.(With records, if any) 2. One CC to Sri. K. Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Lankala Raghavender Reddy,Advocate [OI, JC] 4. One CC to Sri N.J. Sunil Kumar, Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CD Copies KVR/gh b HIGH COURT DATED:1 3/08/2025 1 HE SI4 : i C) c) \ 2 7 il,li ?0?fi ! ::' Dr-' splncll-t t ) I ..:.i JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.46 ot 2021 [ 2 DRAFTS ] PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. l 134/,41 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT C IVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 46 OF 2021 Between: E. Balraj Goud, S/o. Rarnakrishnaiah, Age. 31y-ears' Occ.Home Guard, rio Mannapur village, Maddur Mandal, Mahabubnagar District- ...AppellanUClaimnant AND 'l. B.Govind Reddy, S/o.B.Veera Reddy, Age. Major, Occ.Owner of the Eicher Vehicle bearing'No.AP-22N-5472, rio H.No 4-6712'Kothur village and Mandal, Mahabubnagar District.

2. National lnsurance company Limited, represented by its senior Divisional Manager, D.O.l, Bank Street, Kothi, *ro"r"Or1i.*"spondents/ Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act,1988 against the order the. anddecieeinM.V.O.P.No. 17l2OO7dated.0310412008onthefileoftheCourtof Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-Vll Additional District Judge( FTC) Mahabubnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgmeni and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in.the Case and upJn hearing the arguments of Sri. K. Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant and of sri Lankala Raghavender Reddy, Advocate for the Respondent No.'1 and Sri N.J. Sunil Kumar forthe respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed, modify the order and decree dt: 0304/2008 in OP No' 17 of 2007 passed by the Chairman, MACT-cum-Vll Additional District Judge' Mahabubnagar, by enhancing the compensation from Rs' 18'000/- to Rs.50,000/-;

2. fhal the enhanced compensation amount shall carry i tterest @ 7 .So/op.a. from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That the interest for the period of delay be and hereby is fr rfeited; 4. That on such deposit, the claimants be and hereby arer entitled to. withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

5. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to depo: it the compensation amount with accrued interest within a period of two mor hs from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the e r rount if any already deposited;

6. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the -ribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SI I/. A.V.S. PRASAO DE PUTY REGISTRAR G iECTION OFFlCER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- \'l Additional District Judge( FTC) Mahabubnagar.(With records, if any)

2. Two CD Copies KVR/gh o\ ) HIGH COURT DATED:13/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.46 of 2021 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS. \