P. Penta Reddy Vs G.S. Suresh and Another

¶1

t^3443l

¶2

rN rHE^{HrGH couRrf8$otffoBtffEoF TELANGANA}

¶3

F Rr DAY^{r H} +iFJilil1fli'"-?{ *lu"g TWO^THOUSANI

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE^{HONOURAB LE SRIJUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDTKONDA} ENT^{clVtL MrscELLANEO} US P EAL^{NO: 925 oF2} 013 MOApPeal TOR^{ACfiled clDunderSection 173 of MVAct'against Order and Decree} 2013 Passed^{in OPNo. 2058of 2008 on the file of the court of theI} dated^17.01 ns^{JudgeCumXVAdditional Chief Judge'} Additional Metropolitan^Sessio Hyderabad.

¶6

i"l',r,=**-,:f^{-'"'"'f '[#s,5f} AND "l"d"TiB"[-:J:Ll-'"-fl^'-1.

¶7

1. G.S.^{SURESH' Business' R/o ChabbarasApartments' Somajiguda' Hyderabad-} 500016

¶8

6 -- r"" i+c nivisional Manager'^#4-3-28111' Re^{p bv'" o..'lll'ro}

¶9

'^{i:t lrl**fl ,Tr'.'JiltT.9,%bbt'} * D^{ENr s' RE s PoN D E Nr s}

¶10

Counsel^{for the Appellant: SRI'JAGATHPALREDDY KASI REDDY} Counsel^{for the ResPondentNo'1 : -} counsel^{for the Responoent r'ro'z : sRl' N's' BHASKARRAO} ft.^{Co,tt made the following: JUDGMENT}

¶11

THE HON'BLE^{SRI JUSTICENARSING RAO NANDIKONDA} M.A.C.^{M.A.No.925of 2O13}

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

This M.A.C.M'A.^{is frled underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles} Act, 1988 by the^{appellant/petitioneraggrieved by the Award arrd} decree dated^{17.01.2O13passed in M.V.O.P.No.2058 of 2008 by the I} Additional Metropolitan^{Sessions Judge-cum- XV Additional Chief} Judge, Hyderabad^{(for short, 'the Tribunal')seeking compensation of} Rs.2,06,338/- lor^{the injuriessustained by the petitioner in a motor} vehicle accident^{that took place on 29 'O3 '2OO7'}

¶14

The brief facts^{of the case are that appellant/claimantfiled} M.V.o.P.No.334of20ir6underSectionl66(1)(a)oftheM.V.Act,1988 seeking compensation^{for the injuries receivedin a motor vehicle} accident alleged^{to have been caused due to rash and negligent manner} by the driver^{of the car on 29'03'2O07at about8'30 a'm'' the petitioner} was going on^{scooterbearingNo'AP23 F 5683 as pillion rider to his} agricultural field^and '*'hen^{he reached nationalhigh way No'7 at} Narsing Road^{towards Hyderabadside, one car bearingNo'AP 9 BG} 1158 driven^{by its driver in rash and negligent mannercame behind his}

¶15

2

¶16

IIYR,J LIACNA lib.925 oI 2Ot3

¶17

scooter and dashed the same. Due to which the ridc. of t.e scooter ald petitioner fell dow'n and received murtiple injuries ar cl they were shifted to local hospita-l at Ramayampet, thereafter, they *,r:r . shifted to Gandhi Hosptial, Secunderabad and on the same Cay, th,r.. u,.crc shifted to a private hospital i.e., Heritage Hospital where he tL: s taken treatment from 29.O3.2007 to 1S.OS.2OO7 and incurred huge ,:;:penditure towards medical bills ald as such the petitioner has filed tlrr. M.V.O.p claiming compensation of Rs.2,06,33g/_.

¶18

The contention of the petitioner before the le;r,ed .lribunal was that due to accicrent, the petitioner sustained i) Fra.t Lrre or left shaft of left femur (thigh bone), contusion on head and othr.r i,juries and also unde^vent surgicai operation for which the petitio,,:r had incurred an amount of Rs.67,838/- to,"vard s hospital and medi,.al expenses and claimed an amount of Rs.2,06,33g/_ under rarious heads as compensation for the said accident.

¶19

4 Before the learned Tribunal, the respondent Nr 2 - the National Insurance Compary filed their counter_affidavit. lenying all the averments made in the claim petition, including thc r rlarner in which

¶20

3

¶21

]VI\IR,J rAcNA tb.925^{or 2ot3}

¶22

the accident took^{place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and} and further contended^{that the compensation claimedby the petitioner} is excessive and^{prayedto dismiss the claim petition' Respondent No' 1} adopted the counter^{hled by the respondentNo'2'}

¶23

Basing on the^{pleadings and avermentsmade by both the parties'} the learned Tribunal^{framed the following issueswhich readsas under:}

¶24

"Whether the accident^{occurred on 29 .O3 '2OO7 at 8:30 pm, near} Sankapur cross^{roads, Shankarampet,was due to the rash ald} negligent driving^{of the motor car bearingNo'AP9 BG 1158,by its} driver?

¶25

Whether the^{petitioner is entitled to any compensation,if so' to} what amount and^{from u'hom?}

¶26

To what relieP

¶27

After perusing^{the oral and documentaryevidenceand going into} the entire record^{and the evidence placed by both the parties'the} learned Tribunal^{allowed the claim in part and granted compensationof} Rs.67,OOO/- along^{with interest} @^{7 .5o/o per annum'}

¶28

4

¶29

ll G,J .aAcMA No.925 o! 2013

¶30

7 . Being unsatisfred and aggrieved by the m(,a ger <:ompensation amount awardecl by the learned Tribunal, the presen - appr:al is filed on the ground among other grounds that the learned Trbunal having held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negii ]en.r (iriving of the driver of the car, however not granted just compensation amount as claimed by the petitioner. The petiticner examined I,,,s. I & 2 and filed documents marked as Exs.Ai tc Ai 1 and proved tlii,t he has received grievous injuties due to the accirieni.

¶31

B. Learned counsel for the oetitioner further ccntt,nded that as the petitioner has suffered fracture tc his left fernur, ht. r'as ,nable to do day to day affairs i.e., unable t. lift weights, drive t'ro whee:ler and also contended that, the iearned rribunar without takirrg rnto cc.sideration of all the aspects has av,zarded an amount of Rs.(rl .O0O,r-, u,hich is meager and not awarded just and fair compensation r,nd so also under other heads.

¶32

Learned counsel for- the petiticner further c()r tendod that the learned Tribunal ought to have awardeci an amoun. cf' Rs. 15,OO0/ - towards loss of earning, but the learned Tribunal ar,va r led a, amount of \ _.*

¶33

5

¶34

NNR'J t^cxA lto.92s of 2or3

¶35

Rs.9,000/-andalsonotawardedjustcompensationunderotherheads i.e., transport charges and^{awardedRS.67,OOO/- in total, which is} meagre and prays this^{Court to enhancethe compensation amount} awarded by the learned^Tribunal.

¶36

Learned counsel for^{therespondents submits thatafter} considering the entire^{evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal} has awarded^just compensation,^{u'hichneeds no interference'}

¶37

I l. Heard llfr.Kas lreddg^{Jagathpal Reddg, learnedcounselfor the} appellant/petitioner^{and .llfr. N. S. B horskarRoro , learned counsel for the} respondent No.2.^{Perusedthe material on record'}

¶38

Admittedly, respondents^{have not filed cross-appealagainstthe} Award passed by the^{learnedTribunal. As such, there is no dispute} regarding liability of the^{respondents and occurrenceof the accident.} The only point that arose^{beforethis Court in this appealis that:}

¶39

i) Whether the^{petitioneris entitled} for^{the enhanced compensation'if so'} to uhat ertent?

¶40

Point o-l

¶41

Admittedly, the^{present appeal is Frled by the appellant/claimant} having been unsatislied^{with the compensation awarded by the learned}

¶42

6

¶43

, I,^E,J MACMA ,{0.925 of 2073

¶44

Tribunal i.e., Rs.67,000/- as against the claim of th: :rppellant/claimarrt i.e., Rs.2,06,33ti/-. Admittedly, there is no dispute r.garding the nature of accident a.d the involvement of the said car ar cr rherre is also no dispute u'ith the fact that the said vehicle was insur- rd wii.h respondent No 2' It is also not in dispute rhat the said accident r,r irs occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the r;: id cerr. The main grievance of the petitioner before this court is that t L r: lear.ned rribunal ought to have awa.rded considerable amount under th:. head of pain and sufferance as the peritioner has sustained head iniLrry along u,ith the injury to his thigh bone. The learned Tribunal awarrl,,d Rs.25,000/_ for the thigh bone injury and Rs.5,000/- for the head rrrjury. tt is nor in dispute that there was a head injury s,r ;taine.d by the petitionerT'claima nt. as such this court of the opini.r that the amount which is awarded by the Tribunal under the head of pi rin and sufferance for the head injury needs to be enhanced anci an arnc r nt cf Rs.25,0O0/_ for the said injury can be awarded in addition to th3 .rmornt u,hich is awarded in respect of the injury sustained on the th gh bone. Besides that, it is submitted by the petitioner that the petil i,ner l-rad been to various hospitals all through his treatment. Initially. rr. u'as admitted in

¶45

7

¶46

ll1{R'J MACUA No 925^{ol 2013}

¶47

goverrrment hospitat^{at Ramanapet and from there he was shifted to} Gandhi^{Hospitaland subsequentlyhe was shifted to Heritage Hospital} and the injury^{which is sustained by the petitioner beingtc the leg i'e'' a} thigh, obviously,^{the petitioner might have been shifted to vanous} hospital by^{engaging some ambulanceor any other four wheeler'In the} said circumstances,^{the petitioner might have incurredsomeamounts} for the said^{transportation'Consideringthe ground realities'I hold that} awarding^{of Rs.4,OO0/-towards transportationappears to be meager} sideandalramorrntofRs.l0,o00/-Canbeawardtowards transportation^{in placeof Rs'4,00O/-'}

¶48

It is^{also further contented that as per PW-2 and the records} shows that^{the petitioner was beingoperated in respect of thigh bone for} thefractureofleftshaftandleftfemurwithinterlockingnailingofleft femurfractureandaSperthepetitioner,herequiresfuturesurgeryfor the purpose^{of removalof said implants' No doubt' for removalof said} implants,^{the petitionerhas to incursome amount'Considering the} same and^{also the groundrealities' this court is of the opinion that an} amount of^Rs.20,OOO /^{-canbe awardedfor the future treatment of the} same and^{in respect} 9[^{the other charges this court if of the opinionthat}

¶49

8

¶50

.AI]'R,J ITACMA No.92S oJ 2Otg

¶51

the amounts which are awarded under othr:r heads needs no reassessment or reconsideration.

¶52

On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, ma _erial on record and submissions made by both sides, this Court is of t.re opinion that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of compensal.i,)n as modified and recalculated as above and as given in the table belo..v lor easy reference.

¶53

Amount arrlved at by Arnr ,rint arrived at by
Head the Tribunal
:his Court
Loss of earnr
Rs.9 oo0
Transpgle tion Char oo0 RI as.9,O0Os-1 o/-
Pain borre and arrdSuheaC ffersnice n u(thigh Rs.25,OOO/- Rs.5 000 & R r.50,OOO/-
I-oss of inco rne
I.'urure Treatment {Removai Rs.9 oo0 I s.9 000
oi im lanLs R,;.3O,OOO/-
Itledical aild Extra
Rs.2C,OO0/-
ir"cunshment R t.20,O0(l/ -
Total
Rs.67,Oo0/-
Rs.1,28,OOO/-

¶54

L6. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part I ry enhancing the compensation from Rs.67,O00/- to Rs.1,28,OOO/- (Rupees One Lakh T\renty Eight rhousand onry! with the interes t of r.so/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date

¶55

9

¶56

lvIq,J TACUA No-925 oI2or3

¶57

of realization. The^{respondentsare directed to depositthe said amount} together with costs and^{interest after givingdue credit to the amount} already deposited, if^{any, withina period of two months from the date of} receipt of a copy of this^{judgment.On suchdeposit,the petitioner is} permitted to withdraw the^{same without furnishing any surety' There} shall be no order as^{to costs}

¶58

17 . Miscellaneous^{pe-titions,if any are pending,shall standcloscd}

¶59

SO/- MOHD.ISMAIL DEPUTY^REGISTRAR

¶60

/,TRUE^COPY/'

¶61

ECTION OFFICER

¶62

To, 1 The file of the^{I Additional MetropolitansessionsJudge cumXV Additional} a Egbtg:.$ffiAffi^{[,"fr ['.?,"'^S]I5ffiJutj,o"*"ropucl} 34. Two CD CoPtes GE/PSL

Y.

HIGH COURT

DATED:11/07/2025

JUDGMENT

MACMA.No.g25 of 2013

it.'. ),rAf
"
I
5
'.1) ir {lr:i ts6 r )l

¶69

PARTLY ALLOWNG THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS

¶70

G .e6nh
trw

¶71

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶72

FRIDAY,THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶75

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 925 OF 2013

¶76

Between:

¶77

P. PENTA REDDY, S/o Late P.Ram Reddy, Rl/o. H.No. 7-'1-78, Balaji Bhgyanagar Complex, Sharam Kran Road, Ameerpet, Hydera bad.

¶78

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶79

AND

¶80

G.S. SURESH, Business, R/o. Chabbaras Apartments, Somajiguda, Hyderabad - 500016

¶81

The National lnsurance Co.Ltd.,, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, #4-3-28111 , Bank Street, Hyderabad-500001.

¶82

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶83

Appeal flted under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 17.01.2013 passed in OP No. 2058 of 2008 on the file of the I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge Cum XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad.

¶84

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 argument of SRI KASI REDDY JAGATHPAL REDDY, Advocate for the App6llant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 and SRI N.S. BHASKAR RAO, Advocate appeared for Respondent No.2.

¶85

This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

¶86

'1. That the Motor Accident Civit Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

¶87

That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.67,000/- to Rs.1 ,28,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty Eight Thousand Only) with the interest of 7.5o/o on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶88

./

¶89

That the respondents be and are hereby directed to d3r)osit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit t) the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from he date of receipt of a copy of this^judgment.

¶90