C. Devender vs M/S. Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd.
2025 Latest Caselaw 3478 Tel

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 3478 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 March, 2025

Telangana High Court

C. Devender vs M/S. Go Green Motors India Pvt. Ltd. on 27 March, 2025

                                  1




     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.02 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the order

and decree dated 10.03.2020 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1973 of 2014

by the Motor Accidents Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court at Hyderabad (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 petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

07.12.2023, the petitioner was going by walk by the side of the

road at Street No.2, Gachibowli, Cyberabad at 11.00 PM and in the

meantime, the rider of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 24

AR 4003 came from Gachibowli at High Speed in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, as a result of which,

the petitioner fell down and sustained compound fracture of both

bones of left leg, vascular injury and injuries to head and

immediately, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Somajiguda,

where he underwent inpatient treatment and that he has incurred

huge medical expenditure. It is his case that even after getting

discharged from the hospital, he is undergoing periodical checkup ETD,J MACMA No.02_2021

and has sustained 40% permanent disability. Therefore, he

claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The owner of the crime vehicle who is the first respondent

has filed counter denying all the allegations and further contended

that there may be contributory negligence on the part of the

petitioner and has denied the petitioner's income and medical

expenses incurred by him.

5. The second respondent who is the rider of the motor bike

remained ex parte.

6. The third respondent is the insurer who filed counter

denying the occurrence of accident and also contended that the

person riding the motor bike did not have a valid driving licence

and that the insurance company is not liable to pay any

compensation. He further denied the age and occupation of the

petitioner.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the

following issues for trial:

"1. Whether the accident occurred on 07.12.2013 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Royal Enfield Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 24 AR 4003?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the injuries sustained as compensation, if so to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?"

ETD,J MACMA No.02_2021

8. At the time of trial, the petitioner got examined PWs 1 to 3

and got marked Exs.A1 to A20. On behalf of the respondents, RWs

1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

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

an amount of Rs.9,56,384/- in favour of the petitioner and against

the respondent Nos.1 to 3 with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from

the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said order, the

present appeal is preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement

of compensation.

10. Heard the submission of Sri P.Rama Krishna Reddy, learnd

counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned

counsel for respondent No.3.

11. Learned counsel for appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal failed to consider the medical bills filed by the petitioner

and that the petitioner having sustained grievous injuries,

underwent treatment at Yashoda Hospital and incurred huge

medical expenses. He further submitted that the medical bills

under Exs.A9 to A12 and A15 are for a total sum of Rs.3,78,313/-

and the Tribunal has awarded only an amount of Rs.1,36,872/-.

He further argued that the Tribunal has wrongly granted less

compensation and that has awarded meager amount towards ETD,J MACMA No.02_2021

transportation and has not granted any compensation towards

attendant charges, extra nourishment etc., and therefore, he

prayed for enhancement of compensation.

12. The learned respondent counsel has submitted that the

Tribunal has granted excess amount of compensation towards loss

of income and that the injuries stated by the petitioner is not a

scheduled injury and has therefore, prayed to uphold the order

and decree of the Tribunal.

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

following points for determination:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation?

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

3. To what relief?

14. POINT NO.1:

a) The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation.

A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal reveals that the

Tribunal has considered all the components that is the injuries

sustained by the petitioner, the treatment underwent by him and

also the disability and has awarded amounts under all these heads

and arrived at an amount of Rs.9,56,384/-.

ETD,J MACMA No.02_2021

b) At the time of final hearing, the appellant counsel has fairly

conceded that the medical bills under Exs.A10, A11, A12 and A15

were not considered by the Tribunal and thus, he is aggrieved by

the award passed by the Tribunal.

c) Considering the said aspect and on a perusal of the award, it

is revealed that the medical bills under Ex.A9 was considered by

the Tribunal to an extent of Rs.1,36,872/- and the same is

awarded but the other medical bills under Exs.A10, A11, A12 and

A15 are not considered by the Tribunal. The total amount of these

bills is Rs.2,41,441/- and as such, this Court is inclined to

consider those bills and the same is awarded to the petitioner

towards compensation in addition to that granted by the Tribunal.

Thus, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.11,97,825/-., while the

Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,56,384/-. Point No.1 is answered

accordingly.

15. POINT NO.2:

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with

regard to the quantum of compensation, therefore, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of

Rs.9,56,384/- is enhanced to Rs.11,97,825/-. Point No.2 is

answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.02_2021

16. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the claim petitioner is

partly allowed, modifying the order and decree dated 10.03.2020

passed in M.V.O.P.No.1973 of 2014 by the Motor Accidents

Tribunal - cum - III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at

Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.9,56,384/- to

Rs.11,97,825/- 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, if any,

is forfeited. The petitioner shall pay the deficit Court fee.

Respondent Nos.1 to 3 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 petitioner is

entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any

security. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the

payment of deficit Court fee by the petitioner. No costs.