IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.510 of 2019 DATE: 22.01.2026 Between: Syed Iqbal …..Appellants AND Punnam Thirupathi and four others ….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the appellant-claimant, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 26.12.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.155 of 2018 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), Mancherial (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby compensation of Rs.39,000/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 14.10.2014 at about 5:00 p.m., while the appellant-claimant was travelling in an auto rickshaw from Bellampalli to Godavarikhani, when the auto reached Bellampalli X-road, Mancherial, a Bolero Jeep bearing No. AP-15-V-

8622, driven in a rash and negligent manner, suddenly turned and dashed against the auto rickshaw. As a result, the appellant-claimant sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the appellant-claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Mancherial, and thereafter took treatment in private hospitals. Claiming that he was aged about 48 years and earning Rs.15,000/- per month as a driver, the appellant-claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., driver of Jeep, respondent No.2 i.e., owner of Jeep and respondent No.4 i.e., driver- cum-owner of Auto remained ex parte. Respondent Nos.3 and 5 being the insurers of the Bolero Jeep and the Auto Rickshaw and belonging to the same company filed a common counter not only contending that the auto rickshaw was overloaded but also disputing the age, occupation, income, loss of income, manner of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, validity of driving licences and insurance coverage. It was further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Bolero Jeep and awarded a total compensation of Rs.39,000/- in favour of the appellant-claimant.

Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant seeking enhancement.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding a very low amount despite evidence of fracture injury, hospitalization, and follow-up treatment. Learned counsel argued that reasonable compensation ought to have been awarded towards injuries, medical expenses, transportation and other heads.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 5 - insurance company supported the award of the Tribunal.

7. On a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of the accident, rash and negligent driving, and liability of the insurer, as the same has attained finality.

8. The only issue that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

9. On a perusal of Ex.A3 -injury certificate, it is evident that the appellant-claimant sustained a fracture of the right forearm, which constitutes a grievous injury. Having regard to the nature of injuries sustained, the period of treatment undergone, the pain and suffering endured by the appellant-claimant, this Court is of the considered view that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads is inadequate and warrants enhancement.

10. Accordingly, upon reassessment of the evidence on record, this Court finds it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards injuries, taking into account the fracture sustained, the pain and suffering undergone, and the period of treatment.