Telangana High Court

Akula Sandeep vs Junnaavula Saraiah And 3 Others on 3 September, 2025

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.177 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173

of the M.V.Act against the Award and decree passed by the Chairman,,

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - cum - VI Additional District Judge),

Godavarikhani (hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in

M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2015, dated 06.02.2019.

2. The brief facts of the case are that earlier claimant/ petitioner had

filed the claim petition under Section 166 of M.V.Act seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor

vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and negligent

manner by the driver of the Lorry. It is contended that on 28.02.2013,

the petitioner along with his friend went to Karimnagar on a motor cycle

bearing No.AP-15-BE-9415 was returning from Karimnagar to Manthani

and when they reached Gundaram Village, the respondent No.1 i.e.,

driver of lorry bearing No.AP-24-K-0457, came in opposite direction in a

rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the petitioner's

bike, due to which the petitioner who was pillion rider fell on the road

NNR,J

and sustained grievous, simple injuries all over the body. Immediately,

the petitioner was shifted to Government Civil Hospital, Peddapalli and

for better treatment petitioner was shifted to Adhitya hospital,

Hyderabad. The Police registered a case in Crime No.34 of 2013 against

the driver of offending vehicle for the offence under Section 337 and 338

of IPC.

3. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was

that due to accident, the petitioner suffered fracture to his right leg,

fracture to the medial border of patella, fracture of tibia with proximal

1/3rd extension and open fracture shaft humerus right displaced, apart

from a laceration below the left eye brow, the petitioner was admitted

and in the Adhitya Hospital from 01.03.2013 and discharged on

15.03.2013. While discharging, the doctors advised the petitioner to

take bed rest for three weeks and advised him to undergo

physiotherapy. Due to injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner

suffer pain and mental agony and he is unable to attend his normal

duties, as such, petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- under

various heads as compensation for the said accident.

NNR,J

4. Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent No.1 & 2 Driver and

owner of the crime Lorry remained ex-parte. The respondent No.3 & 4 -

Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, filed common counter-

affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including

the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income

of the petitioner and submitted that the accident occurred due to self

negligence of the petitioner and further contended that the

compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

5. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which read

as under:

"1. Whether the motor vehicle accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the crime vehicle?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, to what amount and if so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. After hearing both the parties and their rival contentions and

perusing the oral and documentary evidences placed by both the

NNR,J

parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim in part and granted

compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum.

7. Being unsatisfied by the compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant

on the following among the other grounds that the petitioner was 22

years old as on the date of accident and is a photographer by profession

and used to earn Rs.10,000/- p.m. Due to accident, the petitioner was

admitted in the hospital from 01.03.2013 to 15.03.2013 and the

petitioner suffered fracture to his right leg, fracture to the medial border

of patella, fracture of tibia with proximal 1/3rd extension and open

fracture shaft humerus right displaced, apart from a laceration below

the left eye brow. Accordingly, the petitioner suffered four fracture

grievous injuries and incurred expenditure of Rs.4,50,000/- for

treatment which was supported with the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2.

However, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/-to each of the

fracture injury and Rs.50,000/- only towards 'pain and sufferance'

which is meagre.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as per

the Ex.A5-Dischrage Summary and Ex.A14-Prescirption by

NNR,J

Dr.Venumadav, the petitioner developed stiffness in the right leg and is

not able to bend his right leg, thereby his earning capacity has been

totally effected with 100% loss of earning capacity and as such, the

Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation towards the permanent

disability and awarded compensation towards loss of future prospects.

The learned Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation

under the head 'extra nourishment', and 'transportation'.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 submits that after

considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal

has awarded just compensation, which needs no interference.

10. None appeared for respondent No.1 & 2.

11. Heard Sri Ramachandar Rao Vemuganti, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent Nos.3 & 4 - Insurance Company. Perused the record.

12. Admittedly, respondents have not filed cross-appeal against the

Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is no dispute

regarding liability of the respondents and occurrence of the accident.

The only point that arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

NNR,J

i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly considered the claim petition and granted just and fair compensation to the petitioner.

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent.?

Point No.1 & 2.

13. Admittedly, the petitioner got injured due to accident occurred on

28.02.2013. The petitioner claimed that he was working and eking out

his livelihood by doing photography and was earning Rs.10,000/- per

month, however no documentary proof is filed by the petitioner to show

that the petitioner was earning Rs.10,000/- per month.

14. As per Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.15, it appears that petitioner that after the

accident, the petitioner was given first-aid and was taken to Government

Civil Hospital, Peddapalli and the petitioner was critical, as such he was

taken to Adhitya Hospital. The petitioner claimed that he suffered

fracture to his right leg, fracture to the medial border of patella, fracture

of tibia with proximal 1/3rd extension and open fracture shaft humerus

right displaced, apart from a laceration below the left eye brow. The

petitioner was admitted in the Adhitya Hospital from 01.03.2013 and

discharged on 15.03.2013. The petitioner claimed that he has spent an

amount of Rs.4,50,000/- for treatment, in support of the claim he has

filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A15, which are summary and medical bills for

NNR,J

Rs.2,50,000/-, but the petitioner himself admitted before the Tribunal

that he paid an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to Adhiya Hospital for Hospital

Bills, however, the petitioner spent some more amount at blood bank,

hence the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- towards

hospital charges, pharmacy bills which appears to be reasonable and

needs no interference.

15. The petitioner suffered four grievous injuries, and the learned

Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- for each injury in total awarded

Rs.1,20,000/- for four injuries and Rs.10,000/- towards 'laceration' and

Rs.50,000/- towards 'pain and sufferance', which appears to be

reasonable and on considering the ground realities it needs no

interference. However, the learned Tribunal has not awarded any

amount under the head of 'loss of earrnings', 'transportation' 'attendant

charges', which ought to have been award by the learned Tribunal.

16. The petitioner claimed that he has suffered 100% disability, but no

disability certificate has been filed before the Tribunal or in this Court.

Hence, this the claim of the petitioner to awarded 100% loss of earning

capacity cannot be considered, but this Court is inclined to award

Rs.10,000/- per month, towards 'loss of earning', as the petitioner could

NNR,J

have taken 3 months bed rest for healing of four fractures, therefore,

petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards 'loss of income'. This Court

is also inclined to award Rs.5,000/- towards 'transportation charges'

and Rs.5,000/- towards 'attendant charges'

17. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record.

This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as above

and given in the table below for easy reference.


                                   Amount arrived at by   Amount arrived at by
                  Head                the Tribunal            this Court

            Grievous Injuries           1,20,000/-            1,20,000/-
                Laceration               10,000/-              10,000/-
         Pain and Sufferance           Rs.50,000/-             50,000/-
      Medical Bills and Pharmacy       3,50,000/-             3,50,000/-
               Charges
           Loss of Income                     -                30,000/-
       Transportation Charges                 -                 5,000/-
         Attendant Charges                                      5,000/-
                  Total                5,30,000/-             5,70,000/-

18. Considering the circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

has rightly awarded the rate of interest at 6 % per annum and the same

needs no interference by this Court. However, this Court is of the

opinion that the petitioner/claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on

the enhanced amount.

NNR,J

19. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.5,30,000/- to Rs.5,70,000/-/- (Rupees Five

Lakh Seventy Thousand Rupees only) with the interest of 7.5% on

the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the

date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said

amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the