##PAGE1##

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.809 of 2019

DATE: 01.04.2026

Between:

Shaik Babu

…..Appellant AND

Md. Yousuf and another

….Respondents

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant, assailing the

judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007 passed in O.P.No.1208 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.34,000/-

for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts, in nutshell, are that on 08.05.2002 at about 11:30 a.m., the appellant-claimant was driving his auto bearing No.AHT-6392 from Nizamabad towards Bodhan and when he reached near Nataraj Theatre, a jeep bearing No.AP-1-T-5042, driven in a rash

2

and negligent manner, came from the opposite direction and dashed against the auto. As a result of the said collision, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries including fracture of right patella and other multiple injuries. He was initially treated at Government Hospital, Nizamabad, and thereafter underwent surgery in a private hospital. Claiming that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month as an auto driver and suffered loss of earnings and incurred huge medical expenses, the appellant-claimant filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A12 and Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 policy was marked. Upon consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep and awarded a total compensation of Rs.34,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, the appellant-claimant preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement.

3

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in awarding meagre amounts under various heads, despite clear evidence of grievous injury and prolonged treatment. Learned counsel further contended that the appellant/claimant was hospitalized for considerable period and underwent surgery, but the Tribunal failed to award just and reasonable compensation; and thus prayed for enhancement of

compensation.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal contending that the compensation awarded is just and

reasonable and does not warrant interference.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep has attained finality, as the same is not seriously disputed before this Court. Therefore, the only aspect that requires consideration is with regard

to the quantum of compensation.

7. It is evident from the record that the appellant/claimant sustained fracture of right patella and other injuries and was treated as inpatient in Government Hospital and thereafter in a private

4

hospital, where he underwent surgery. The medical evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Exs.A3 to A12 clearly establish the nature of injuries and the treatment undergone by the claimant. The Tribunal, however, awarded only a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards injuries and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is on the lower side and not commensurate with the nature of injuries sustained and treatment undergone. Having regard to the evidence on record, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation under various heads requires enhancement. Accordingly, the amount awarded towards injuries is enhanced f