The Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad. vs. M/S The AP Mahesh Coop Urban Bank Limited,

[3230 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NOS : 50 0F 2008 AND 2917 0F 2007 MACMA NO.50 0F 2008: Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.53 of 2005 dated 20lOBl2O07 on'the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal --cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: L.Srinivas, S/o. Sambaiah Ri/o.Plot No.74, Raja Reddy Nagar, Champapet, Ranga Reddy District AND ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER 1 2 M.Madhanmohan Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Major Owner of Lorry No.AP-10-T- 4649, Rl/o.H.No.3-6-1 1, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District' (R1 disd. for default vide court ordet daled '121712016) _ ihe United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by Regional Manager, Office at United Buildings, Basheerbagh X Roads, ,YO"raO1.O*TT.ONDENTS For the Appellant : SRI M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY' Advocate For the Respondent No.2 : SRI A.V.K.S.PRASAD, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : NONE APPEARED MAcMA NO.2917 0F 2007: Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.53 of 2005 dated 201O812007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad.

Between: The United lndia lnsurarce Company Limited, Regional Office, Hyderabad through its Divisional Office l, Secunderabad rep., by Sr. Div. lt/anager ...A''ELLANT/ R2 AND 1. L.Srinivas, S/o. tiambaiah aged 28 years, Occ: Manager, Tirumala Shirdi Estate, Rr/o.Plot No.74, Raja Reddy Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad, A.P. 2. M.Madhanmohan Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Major Owner of Lorry No.AP-10-T- 4649, R/o.H.No.3-6-'1 1, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (R2 disd. for default vide court order dated 111712016) ...RESPONDENTS For the Appellant : SRI A.V.K.S.PRASAD, Advocate For the Respondent No.1 : SRI M.RAMALINGESWARA REDDY, Advocate The Court delivered the lollowing : COIVIN/ON JUDGMENT )) L I i i I

i:*' 7 /r' THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.c.M.A.Nos.SO of 2OO8 and 2917 of2OO7 coMMON JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the award dated 20 08'2007 in O P'No'53 of 2OO5 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Il Additional Chief Judge, Ci[r Civil Court' Hyderabad' the insurance company hled MACMA No'2917 MACMA No.50 of 2OO8. of 2OO7 and the claimant hled 2. The claim petition was hled seeking compensation of Rs.25,0O,OOO/- for the injuries and disabilities sustained, by the claimant in the accident. The case of the claimant is that he was an employee in Thirumala Shiridi Estate Private Limited and earning an amount of Rs. 10,0OO/- per month On 15 06'2O04' the claimant was going from L.B.Nagar on Splendor Motorcycle and when he reached near Biramalguda Masjid, a Iorry came behind his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motorcycle' As a result' he sustained injuries on his left shoulder' left thigh and his left leg was crushed' He was immediately admitted in Kamineni hospitals and later, shifted to Apollo Hospital and underwent surgeries on 16.06.2004, 17.06-2004 aIId' 24 06'2004' It is submitted that his leg was amputated up to thigh and as per the disability certifrcate (Ex.A6), the claimant has sustained 6oolo disability' 3. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that the Tribunal has considered only 40% disability' even though' the It

i- I-K,J \1.\c\1A 50 2008 in Nfn cNlA 2917 2001 2 certificate was is sued by the medical board stating (llat t he claimant has sustained 6,1% disability- Apart from that no compensation was granted by the Tribunal under the heads of transportation, extra nourishment antl attendant charges. 4. Learned counse.l appearing for the insurance company submits that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the claimalt, and the said aspect was not at ali considered by the tribunal. He fu rther submits that on behalf ol the insurance company, RWI ',gas examined and Ex.Bl insurance policy and trx'B2 rough sketch ol- scene of offence were marked and in the cross examination also, it is stated that the claimant was driving the vehicle in the middle of the road, which shows that there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the same was not considered by the Tribunal. He further submits that the compensation granted by considering 'Rs.9,375/- as income is excessive and s'ithout any basis. He further submits that as the artihcial limb is fixed to the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly assessed the disability at 4Oo/o. 5. Coming to the appeal hled by the insurance company, according to tt:em, there is contributory negligcnce. When the insurance company claims that there is contributory negligence, burden lies on them to prove the same. The Tribunal while dealing with the said issue has obsen,ed that a perusal of Ex.B2 - the rough

// LK,J MACMA 5C 2OOB & MACMA 2917 2007 sketch of scene of offence, would show that the claimant was going close to the divider while the lorry dashed against the injured. Since the lorry was coming behind the motorcycle, the driver of the lorry if not been rash or negligent, this accident could not have taken place. The investigation made by the police as evident from Ex.A2 also substantiates the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver. Even as per the evidence, the left side of the road is under repair and in those circumstances, it cannot be assumed that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. 6. Considering the Ex.A2 and findings of the Court below, this Court is of the view that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the insurance company has miserably failed to substantiate the same by adducing evidence. 7 . Coming to the compensation granted by the Court below, the case of the claimant is that he was working in a private company ald earning an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month and in support of the same Ex.AlO-salary certificate was marked and he is an income tax assessee ald the sarne was marked as Ex.A12. Considering the same, the Court below has taken his income as Rs.9,375/- and this Court finds no illegality. The medical board has given disability certificate by assessing tJle disability at 60%o bugde tribunal considered only 40% by observing that the claimant is using artihcial limb and 3

l.I\.., I]?\CN[A 50 2O0a - & \,lA( ll\44 2<)17 2007 4 thereforc, dis;ability can br: assess ed' at 4Ook ' It cannot be a ground for the Court brllow to come lcr a conclusion that the disability is not 60%,but4C,%.Definitelv,usingofartilrciallimbcannotreducethe disability lrom 600/o to 4Ooh ancl the Court below ought to have taken 600/o as pe r lix-A6-Certificate issued by the medicaI board' 8. This; Court is inclil-red to consider the disability at 6O%o' The incomeoftheclaimantisRs.g,3T5l_.Astheageolclaimantis29 years. He ir; entitled for 4Ooh future prospects' it would come to Rs. 13,125/- (9,375 + Rs.3,750) and the appropriate multiplier is'17' and disabilil y is 6ooh, it comes to Rs.16,06,500/- (Rs. 13,125x12x|7x 6O%). Hencr:, the claimar]t is entitled to Rs 16'06'5o0/- The Court below has already awarded Rs'SO,OOO/- for shock' pain and loss of amenities ol life, Rs.2,6 3,2461- for Medical expenses' Rs 3'OO'000/- for artificial leg, which is just and reasonable and this Court does not hnd any reason to interfere with the same' The Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards transportation' attendant charges anrl extra nourishment, this Court is inclined to grant an amount of Its. 1O,OO0/- torvards transportation' Rs' 10'000/- for extra nourishmertt, Rs'2O,000/- for attendant charges and Rs 10'OO0/- for legal experLses. In a1l, the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.22,69,7'16l-. l I

"/' LK,.J ]\,IACMA 50 2OO8 & MACMA^2917 2OO7 5 9 In the light of the above discussion, the ciaimant is entitled for the following compensation under different heads Head Loss of income due to permanent disability Rs.16,O6,50O/- Artihcial Leg Rs.3,0O,OOO/- Medical expenses Rs.2,63,246/- Pain and suffering Rs.50,OOO/- Attendant charges Rs.20,O0O/- Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/ - Transport charges Rs. 10,O00/- Legal expenses Rs. iO,O00/- Total Rs.22,69,7461- Compensation Awarded 10. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. No.29I7 of 2OO7 is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A. No.50 of 2008 is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs. 14,56,246/- to Rs.22,69,746/-. (a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (b) The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced amount oI compensation. (c) The insurance compzrny shall deposit the amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing any securit5r.

L-K. i MACNIT\ 50 2008 8', MACN1A )917 2007 PendirLg miscellaneor:s petilions, if any, shall stand closed Sd/-MOHD. ISIMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (b SECTION OFFICER 6 To Kj //TRUE COPY// 1. The ll Additiona Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records) 2. One CC to Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri A.Ramalingeswara Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies \ v

.,':;'it

HIGH COURT DATED:06/06/2023 COMMON JUDGMENI' DISMISSING THE MACMA NO,2917I2OO7 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.5O/2008 WITHOUT COSTS. 1 E SIA}F ,< t MACMA.Nos.SO of2008 and2917 ot 2007 vz L-i ) ,+ i ?SR f-O UL I 32 ,9 \\l c' I I P { r>l { *

\ [3230 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NOS : 50 0F 2008 AND 2917 0F 2007 MACMA NO.50 0F 2008: Between: L.Srinivas, S/o Reddy District Sambaiah Ri/o.Plot No.74, Raja Reddy Nagar, Champapet, Ranga ...APPELLANT/ PETITIONER AND 1. M.Madhanmohan Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Major Owner of Lorry No.AP-10-T- 4649, R:/o.H.No. 3-6- 1 1, L. B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (R1 disd. for default vide court order dated 121V12016) 2. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, rep., by Regional Manager, Office at United Buildings, Basheerbagh X Roads, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS MACMA NO.2917 0F 2007:. Between: The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Regional Office, Hyderabad through its Divisional Office l, Secunderabad rep., by Sr. Div. Manage, ...Orra,_,_ANT/ Rz AND 1. L.Srinivas, S/o. Sambaiah aged 28 years, Occ: Manager, Tirumala Shirdi Estate, R/o.Plot No.74, Raja Reddy Nagar, Champapet, Hyderabad, A.P. 2. M.Madhanmohan Reddy, S/o.Nagi Reddy, Major Owner of Lorry No.AP-10-T- 4649, R/o.H.No.3-6-1 1, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. (R2 disd. for default vide court order dated 111712016) ...RES'ONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in OP No.53 of 2005 daled 2010812007 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: 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 suit and upon hearing the arguments of Sri M.Ramalingeswara Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and for the Respondent No.1 in MACMA No.2917l2OO7 and o'f Sr|.A.V.K.S.Prasad, Advocate for R2 and for the Appellant in MACMA No.291712OO7.

whire dismissinq the ^4ACMA No.29-1712007 and arowing the rvlACMA No.50i2008 this Court doth Order and decree as follows : MACMANo.50 0F 20cr8 MACMANo.2917 0F 2007 To 1. That the MACMA be and h-ereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation ^ I:l Rs.14,s6,246l_ to Rs.22,6g,iqul ."-""" ", z' t nar the enhanced amount sha, carry interest at 7.50/o p.a. from the date of ^ petition till the date of realization. t ]i;t iffJllmant shall pav the court fee on the enhanced amount of 4 That the insurance company sha, deposit the amount within a period of g weeks from the date of receifr.f ; .;;;;;';;. rinr"r, 5' That on such deposit the craimant is'permiitiJio withdraw entire amount without furnishing any security - "-- ,', Oi"ri.*1t this Court doth Judgment and decree that this MACIUA be and hereby is That there be no order as to costs in these appeals Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL //TRUE COpy// ASSISTAIyI,REGISTRAR (JIJ SECTION OFFICER The chairman' Molor Accidents craims Tribunar -cum- , Additionar chief *dS9, CitV Civit Courr, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies 1 2 Ki \

HIGH COURT DATED:06/06/2023 COMMON DECREE MACMA.Nos.S0 of 2008 and 2917 oI 2007 DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.2917I2OO7 AND ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.5O/2008 WITHOUT COSTS.