The High Court · 2025

Judgment

Dis;satisfied with the quantum of componsation awa.rded by the leanred Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-IX Actditional District Judge, Kamareddy (hereinafter referred as ,rlre TribunalJ in o.P.No.57 of 2012, dated 18.12.2014, the petitioner/injured in the said O.P. preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the learned]'ribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the p€'titioner/injured filed a petition under Section 166 (1)(a) of thc Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50'OOO I - for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.OL.2012. It is stated by the petit.ioner that on o8.o1 .2OL2, when the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on splendor Hero Honda motorcycle bearing No.AP-1O-AB-O161 from Kamareddy to Devanpally and when the motorcycle reached in front of Jeevadan Hospital, Kamareddy, the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-2S-X-O216 drove the vehicie in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle on which the petitioner was proceeding. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained multiple injuries viz., (11 2 M.{CiuA_t 5l7_20r9 NBI(..' Fracture to right hand, (ii) Comminuted fracture of right shaft femur and (iii) fracture of right foot. lmmediately, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment and later admitted as inpatient and took treatment in Sri Rama Nursing Home, Kamareddy from 08.O1 .2OI2 to 19.O l.2Ol2 and. underwent major operation for the injuries sustained by her and during the course of operation, nails were fixed for the said fracture injuries and the petitioner incurred a sum of Rs. 1,00,OOO / - towards her treatment.

4. [t is submitted by the petitioner that he used to do beedi rolling work and used to earn Rs.10,000 l- per month. Due to the alleged accident, the petitioner'became permanently disabled and unable to do her routine work. As the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-25-X-O216, she filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,OOO/- against respondent No.1, being the owner of subject Tractor and respondent No.2, being the insurer of the crime Tractor.

5. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.l/owner of Tractor bearing No.AP-2S -X*-O216 remained ex-parte.

6. Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company filed its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition including, rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Tractor, injuries ,t 3 tl.{crl{ 15I7.-20t9 Ii RK,J sustaine(l by the petitioner, expenditure incurred by the petitioner for treatment and also contended that the alleged incident \vas occurred only due to the rash and r-regligent driving of the dri'ver of motorcycle.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the learr-red Tribunal had framed the following issues for trial:- 0 Whether the incident happened due to rctsh and negligent driuing of the diuer of the tractor bearing No.AP-2 5-X-02 1 6? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation amount. If so, frorn whom and to uthat amount? (iiil To what relief; In order to substantiate her case, the

8. petitiorrer,/injured examined herself as PW1, go1. examined PW2, Orttropedic Surgeon and got marked Exs.A1 to A13 on her behalf. On behalf of respondent No.2/lnsurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

9. After considering the entire evidence ancl documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition by awarding a sum of Rs.|,2O,OOO/- towards compensation along with interest tl', 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Hav.(ng not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the ! \\ \ 4 i,tACMA_1517,20 t9 NAK.J claim petitioner/injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

10. Heard Sri Akkam Eshu'ar, learned counsel for the Appellant/injured as r.vell as Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company. Perused the record including grounds of Appeal. 1 1. The contentions of the learned counsel for appellant/injured as stated in the grounds of appeal are that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding very meager amounts i.e., Rs.3O,OOO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3O,0O0/- towards loss of income, Rs.20,OO0/- towards attendant, transportation and extra nourishment charges and Rs.40,0OO/- towards treatment charges and the Tribunal failed to consider the disability certificate. Ex.A-10 issued by the Medical Board and therefore prayed to aliow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount. L2. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent No.2/lnsurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this court is unwarranted. I (' J ItACtrl I5l7_2019 NBK,J

13. Now, the point that emerges for determination is, Vhether the appellant/ injured is entitled fo, enhancement of compens ation? POINT:-

14. Since there is no dispute regardir-rg occurrence of accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner. liability against the respc,ndents and since the lindings arrivecl by the Tribunal on those aspects remain unchallenged, this Court is not inclined to once again delve into the said aspects. Thc only point that has to b,: discussed in the present Appeal is with regard to quantum o[ compensation.

15. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PWs I & 2 and awarded meager compensation.

16. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW2-Orthopedic Surgeon who treated the petitioner/injured. PW2 in his evidence deposed that he examined the petitioner and founcj. the following injuries:-

1. Pctin, swelling, deformity and abnonnal mobilitg at right wist and hand. 2. Pcin, suelling, deformity and abnonnal mobility at right thigh. 3.Abrasion on right t@h. 4. A lacerated utound on right dorsum oJ'Joot of about 2x3x7cms. 6 MACIh tsIT 2019 NBK,J He stated that the injuries I &' 2 mentioned above are grievous injuries and injuries 3 & 4 are simple in nature. He also deposed that the petitioner underwent surgery for fracture of shaft of femur and subsequently, for removal of implants, she also underwent second surgery and incurred a sum of Rs.35,O0O l- for the two surgeries and Ex.A1o is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. 17 . In order to disprove the testimony of PWs 1 & 2, respondent No.2/Insurance Company failed to adduce ar.y rebuttal evidence, either oral or documentary. Therefore, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation under various heads as detailed under:- S.No. Details of Head I 2 3 4 Pain and suffering Medicines and treatment charges Loss of income during treatment period Attendant, transportation and extra nourishment charges TOTAL COMPENSATION Arnount awarded Rs.30,0OO/- Rs.40,0OO/- Rs.30,0OO/- Rs.2O,OOO/- Rs.1,20,O0O/-

18. This Court, upon considering the evidence of PW2- Orthopedic Surgeon and the fracture injuries sustained by tho/petitioner, is inclined to award a sum of Rs.2S,OOO/- each i I i I I i r I I I I I I i f I I t { i i ; a : I a EI I I 7 ylcNl.{_I517 i0r!) NAK..l towards two fracture injuries and Rs.10,OOO/- each towards two simple injuries. Also, taking into consideration the permanent disabilir',, sustained by the petitioner for the frercLure injuries and loss r>f carnings incurred by her lor a period of I Yz year due to the said injuries, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby award a sum of Rs.90,00O/- tor,r,ards loss of earnings by considering his monthly income (ai Rs.S,OOO/-. Also considering the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards attendant charges, transportation and extra notrrishment charges to be meager, this Court is inclined to intcrfere with the same and hereby enhance the same to Rs.30,OO0/-. Hence, the petitioner is entitled for enhanced quantum of compensation as detailed under:- .No Details of Head Prdn and suffering Awarded Tribunal Rs.30,OOO/- Awarded by ttris Court Medical Bills Rs.40,OOO/- Attendant charges, tr:msport and extra nourishment Loss of income T\r,o fracture injurres Tu'o simple injuries TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.20,OOO/- I Enhanced Rs.30,OOO/- Rs.30,OOO/- I Enhanced to Rs.90,0OO/- Rs.50,0OO/- Rs.20,0OO/- Rs.1,2O,OOO/- Rs.2,60,OOO/- 1 2 -J 4 5 () \ \ 8 MACilA t5l7 2019 NBI(,J

19. In view of the judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Lqxman Mourya Vs. Diuisional Manage4 Oriental Insrtrance Compang Limited and anotherl, the Apex Court rvhile referring to Nagappa Vs. Grtrttdagal Singh2 wherein the Apex Court held that the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent.

20. In the result, the Appeal is allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,20,0OOl- to Rs.2,60,0OOl- which shall carry interest @

7.5Vo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realizatron payable by respondents L &, 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such payment, the appellant/injured is entitled to withdraw the same by paying deficit Court fee. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if &oy, shall stand cloqed r(?or) to S LL +5b rieo,D Acf tLGq /TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD REGISTRAR UTY OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District 2. &;CCI" Sessions Judge, KamqleddY' Arram Eshdar' Advocate tg^P-Vgl' io sr'r nV K's'Prasad' Advocate [oPUC] -Sri M. i, ?fi: 3E t".-.--..-....-. '.-L_'_:.-:,,;:,';*-.-:...-;.:"-...l:]:1;Eii-#.'.T-.F=,i'+:Iii:i:jr.:.,.:f-:,.-.":i:-.:r-i-_-T1--:*--:.r,g't-rmg# , D ?_5 il0l 2ffi \ () ,) * HIGH COURT DATED:04/0 412A25 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1517 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA 1lr t\ L [ 3300 I IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1517 OF 2019 Between Kasarla Prameela, Wo Shanker Aged 36 years, Occ. Beedi Roller and Vegetable Vendor, R/o Main Road, Devanpally Village, Kamareddy Mandal, Nizamabad District. ...AppellanUClaimant AND

1. Kethavath Sangya and another, S/o Kishan. Owner of tractor, R/o Lingampally Khurd, Lingampet Mandal, Nizamabad District.

2. M/s Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd, Rep by its Branch Manager, Branch Office 1-13-395/04,2nd Floor, Hero Honda Show Room, Hyderabad Road, Vinayakanagar, Nizamabad. . Responde nts/Responde nts Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, against the Order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2012 dated. 18.12.2014 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Clbims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Sessions Judge, Kamareddy. 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 SriAkkam Eshar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent No.2, and none appeared for the respondent No.1. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.2,60,000/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by respondents 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2. That upon such payment, the appellanUinjured is entifled to withdraw the same by parying deficit court fee.

3. That save ets aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

4. That there s;hall be no order as to costs in this appear. //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD REGISTRAR DE t TION OFFICER To, 1 2 W ASAIVB The Chairman, lVlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lX Additional District Sessions_J ud ge, Kamareddy. Two CD Copies I ! HIGH COURT DATED i0410412025 D ECREE MACMA.No.1517 ot 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA v\ $