Naseeb Khan vs Shaik Anwar Pasha And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 4775 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4775 Tel
Judgement Date : 11 April, 2025

Telangana High Court

Naseeb Khan vs Shaik Anwar Pasha And Another on 11 April, 2025

                                     1



     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.571 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 11.12.2014 in M.V.O.P.No.1307 of 2002

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, VIII Additional

District Judge at Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred

to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the claim petitioner before the Tribunal is that

on 01.02.2002, the petitioner was travelling in the auto bearing

No.AP-25U-1259 at about 9.30 A.M. near the fruit market,

Nizamabad, the auto turned turtle due to rash and negligent

driving by the driver. As a result, the petitioner sustained

fractures and immediately he was taken to Maithri Hospital,

Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad, where he was admitted as inpatient

andhe incurred expenditure of Rs.60,000/-. It is the case of the

petitioner that he was a fruit vendor and was earning

Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month. He claimed a compensation

of Rs.3,00,000/-

ETD,J MACMA No.571_2021

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex-parte. The respondent No.2

filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and

further denied its liability to pay compensation and contended

that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligence of

the auto driver and that auto driver does not have valid driving

license as on the date of accident and that the 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:

1) Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of auto No.AP-25-U-1259?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and against which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

6. To prove his case, the petitioner got examined as PWs.1

and 2 and got marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of

respondents no evidence was adduced.

7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted

a compensation of Rs.44,000/- as against the claim of

Rs.3,00,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

ETD,J MACMA No.571_2021

8. Heard the submission of Sri S.Surender Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellantand Sri V. Srinivas Rao, learned counsel

for respondent No.2.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has awarded a very meager compensation and that the

appellant has sustained grievous injuries and suffered a lot. He

further submitted that the appellant filed medical bills and also

the evidence of the doctor was adduced but the Tribunal has not

taken the same into consideration and has awarded a very

meagre amount. He also submitted that the Tribunal has failed

to consider the earnings of the appellant. Therefore, he prayed

to enhance the compensation.

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that there

is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Tribunal. Therefore, he

prayed to uphold the same.

11. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames

the following points for determination:

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as prayed for?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

ETD,J MACMA No.571_2021

12. POINT NO.1:

a) The appellant is aggrieved with regard to the

quantum of compensation. It is his case that he is a fruit vendor

and that he used to earn Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,000/- per month.

However, no proof is filed in this regard.

b) The accident pertains to the year, 2002, some

amount of guess work has to be made based on a reasonable

hypothesis to assess the income of the petitioner.

c) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the Apex

Court has held that in the absence of any proof of income with

regard to a labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken

as the income, but in the present case, the petitioner is a fruit

vendor.

d) Therefore, on a reasonable hypothesis and in view of

the principle laid down in Ramachandrappas's case. The

income of the petitioner can be safely taken as Rs.4,500/- per

month. A perusal of Ex.A3/injury certificate reveals that the

appellant sustained one grievous injury on the left foot. Ex.A4 is

issued by Mithri Hospital wherein the petitioner has undergone

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.571_2021

treatment and the injuries mentioned in Ex.A4 are deposed by

PW.2, who has also stated about the treatment that was given to

the petitioner in their hospital. Ex.A4 further shows the nature of

treatment and investigations that were done. In view of the

grievous injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment

underwent by him, this Court opines that an amount of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering be awarded. In view of

the gravity of injuries sustained by him, it is opined that the

appellant might have taken three (3) months time to recover.

Thus, (Rs.4,500/-x3)=13,500/-is awarded towards loss of

earnings. The medical bills are filed under Ex.A6, so considering

the same, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

which appears to be just and reasonable towards medical

expenses. In addition to the medical expenses, the appellant

might have incurred some expenditure towards transportation,

extra nourishment, attendant charges and incidental expenses.

Therefore, this Court awards another Rs.10,000/- towards the

same.

13. POINT NO.2:

Thus, it is opined that the appellant is entitled to

enhancement of compensation. The compensation granted by ETD,J MACMA No.571_2021

the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.44,000/- is enhanced to

Rs.83,500/-. Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the appellant is partly

allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 11.12.2014 in

M.V.O.P.No.1307 of 2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, enhancing

the compensation from Rs.44,000/- to Rs.83,500/- and the

enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. The

respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount

with accrued interest within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the

amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant

is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any

security.