The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This appeal is {iled by the appellant retitioner being aggrieved and unsatished with the order dated 2l 05 2019 passed in O.P.No.246 of 2Ol5 on the f,tle of the Motor \/ehicles Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, Mir rabubnagar (for short 'the Tribttnai') seeking compensation of Rs.2.00,OOO,/- under Section 166 of M.V. Act, 1988 for the injuries re::ived in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 31.O8.2074.

2. The brief facts of the case are that appellar t/ciaimant filed O.P.No.246 of 2015 under Section 166 of the M.\r. Ai:t, 19BB seeking compensation for the injuries received in a motor vehicle accident alleged to have caused due to rash and r egligent manner by the driver of the car. It is contended that on 1i..08.2014, while petitioner was returning to Kollur from Shadnagal on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-AV-9035 along with his relativr and when they reached Kishanagar, a car bearing registration Nr.AP-11-AC-6622 being driven by its driver in high speed and aL; , in a rash and negligent manner hit petitioner's motorcycle, as zr result of which, I 2 NNR] M.A.C.M.ANo.77 of 2020 he fell down and received severe grievous injuries. It is averred that in the said accident, petitioner received fractures to his right 1eg and also injuries all over his body. After the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital, Shadnagar, later for better treatment, appeliant was shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where he underwent operation for his right leg on 05.09.2014 and discharged on 75.O9.2074.

3. It is contended that petitioner has spent an arnount of Rs. 1,00,00O/- towards medical, transport expenses and also for extra nourishment. At the time of accident, petitioner was studying lOth class and he was earning Rs.1O,O0O/- per month and due to the accident he became permanently disabled and not able to walk ald was bedridden for a period of sk months and prayed the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs.2,O0,000/- with interest.

4. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.l remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-The New India Assurance Company Limited, frled a counter affidavit and denied entire material allegation, manner of accident, reserving its right to take all defences which are available under Section l7O of the Motor 5 NNR/ M.A.C.M-A Na.77 of 2020 Vehicle Act and also denied the age, avocation z- Ld income of the petitioner

5. Basing on the pleadings, the learned Tribuni t has framed the following issues: "i. Whether the accident occurred on 31 .08.2O 1'1 about O7.OO A.M., near Kishnanagar in Shadnc.l was on account of the rash and negligent mann( t the driuer of the car bearing registration No.AP AC-6622 (R1) and whether the petitioner sustanr. 2r c-'f I :d injuries in the said accident? ii. Whether the accident occurred due to rash L negligent diuing of the driuer of the motorcAcle ) tuhether there uas a contibutory negligence on; part of the petihoner uthich led to the accident? iii- Whether the car bearing registration No.AP . AC-6622 Luas not being diuen bg respondent No. - . the of the occident as contended bg respondent No. iu- Whether the claim of the petitioner is excessit,e i During the course of trial, P.Ws.I to 3 wr': 6 1e I )a ,,, e examined and marked Exs.A. 1 to ,4..6 on behalf of the appellant. None examined on behalf of respondents but Ex.B.1-Copy of Insr.r :ance Policy was marked.

7. After having heard both the parties and after going into entire evidence placed by the petitioners and respc ndents, learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accider:'l occurred due to rash and negligence driving of the car bearing Nr .AP-11-AC-6622 4 ruNn) M.A.C-M.ANo.77 of 2O2O and awarded an amount of Rs.1,1O,OOO/- granted towards compensation with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum. Being unsatished and aggrieved by the meager amount passed by the learned Tribunal, the present appeal is being fi1ed. B. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that prior to the occurrence of the accident, the appellant was hale and healthy aged about 19 years as on the date of accident and contended that appellant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, however due to accident, petitioner sustained injuries and was admitted in the hospital and not attended the work. It is further contended that thereafter, Medical Board, Mahabubnagar issued disability certificate to the appellant showing 30% disability, the disability certifrcate was marked as Ex.A.6. The Tribunal erred materially in not taking into consideration that the claimant suffered disability which is certified by P.W.2 and discarded the contentions of P.W.2 only on the ground that the same was issued two years after the accident, which is unlawful and un-sustained and prays to enhance the compensation.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned 5 NNRJ M-A.C M-ANo.77 of 2O2A Tribunal has rightly granted compensation 'rhich needs no interference

10. Heard, Mr. K. Venko,tesh Gupta, learne: counsel for the appellant and Sri Kota Subbarao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. None appeared for responder t No.1. Perused the material on record. Point Nos.l & 2:

11. Admittedly, there are no cross-objections [ed on behalf of the respondents as such it can be taken tha - the respondents having no grievance regarding the liability and als I the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as 1 eere is no denial regarding the involvement of respondent No.1 arl I it is not denied that respondent No.2/Insurance Company who .ssued insurance policy to respondent No.1.

12. The points which arose for consideration be bre this Court in this appeal are that: "i. Wlether the petttioners are entttled 1 tr 'eentrnnced compensation? ii. If so, to uhat ertent?"

13. Admittedly, the Medical Board, Mahabubne gar examined the appellant and found that he was suffering frorr 3O%o permanent 6 M.A.C.M-A No-77 of 2O2O disability. In similar case, i.e., Raj Kutnar o. Aidg Kuntarl, tl:,e Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must distinguish between permanent and functional disability. Even if a doctor certifies 45% disability, the Courts shall reduce if the person can still perform gainlul work. The relevant paragraph is extracted for ready reference hereunder: "'lhe 'l ribunat lrus procccded on lhe basis that the permanent disabilitl' of thc injured-claimant was 45%o and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45o/o. Thc Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disabilitv cerfirtcak re.fcrred to 45% disability u,ith reference to left lower limb and nol in regard to thc entire bo4'. 't'he sald extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed lo result in a corresponding extent of loss oJ earning capacity, as the disabilfi would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vcndor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and suJfcient evidence would have necessitated remand of thc case for further evidence on this aspect- However, instead of remanding thc matter for a fnding on this issue, at this distance of time dfter nedrly two decades, on the facts and ctrcumstances, to do complete justice, we propose lo assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 250% and tlte loss of' fulure earning capacity as 20?5. "

14. Considering the decision of Honble Supreme Court in Rai Kurmar's case (cited aboae), this Court is inclined to take the '1zorr1 r scc:+3 7 N&RJ M.A.C.M.A No.77 ol 2020 disability of the petitioner @ l5o/o for calculat,t g loss of future earning on account of disability. l5.Admittedly,theappellantwasa'student',t::appellantcould not produced the Income certificate to substatr I ate his claim. In this regard, it is imperative to look into the settle i 1ar'r' laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Latha Wodhr tct t's' State oJ Eiillo;r2 held that even when there is no pro. i of income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimir ed and assessed regarding the ground realities by the courts. Ir the present fact and circumstances of the case and consideri rg the judgment passed by the Hon'lcle Apex Court in Ratnachant'rapPa Vs' Rogal Sundrrrann Alliance Insurance Co.Ltd3, wher: n, the income of the deceased therein was taken as Rs.4,5O0/- pe'; month, therefore this court is inclined to take the monthly income of a petitioner as Rs.a,500/- per month.

16. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme r- curt in National Insurance Cotnpang Limited Vs- Pranag Sethi and others4 and considering the age of the appellant as 19 ve ils which is not ' zoot 1a1 scc 197 t r (zorr) 13 scc 236 4 2017 ACJ 2700 8 M.A.c.M.A No.77 oJ 2020 dispute by either of the parties, additional 4Oo/o of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the appellant. Therefore, the monthly income of the appellant would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.a,50O/- + Rs.1,800/ ). The annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- X l2l. Thus the loss of future income of the appeilant on account of disabiliry of 15% nould come to Rs.1 1,340/- (75,600 x l5o/ol t7. As per column No.4 of schedule hxed in the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarta Verma a, Delhi Transport Corporotions, and considering the age of the appellant as 19 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner age group between 15-20 years is '18'. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to Rs.2,04, l2O/- (11,340 x 18).

18. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medicines, Rs.40,000/- towards removal of right leg (interlocking nail) and apart from that gralted an amount of Rs.5,OO0/- towards transport charges and Rs.5,OO0/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards grievous injury. This Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal has rightly 'zoos acr rzsa 1sc1 9 NNR) M.A.C.M.A Na.77 of 2020 granted amounts under the above said heads anc this Court hnds no reason to interfere u'ith the said amounts lg. On overall re-appreciation of the pleacl:r gs, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon1ole Sutr': 666 Court in the aforesaid cited decision. This court is of the lpinion that the petitioner is entitled to just and fair compensat t n and calculated as above and given in the table below for easy rerle :ence' Head Amount arrived at tr5' his Court \ Loss of future earning on account of dtsability Medical Bills Removal of right leg (interlocking nail) Extra-Nourishment Transportation Charges Grievous Injury Total Rs. 2,O4,12o I Rs. 50,000 / Rs- 40,OOC 7 Rs- s,OOt / Rs. 5,0Ot / Rs- 10,OO( i Rs.3,14,1i1 /- t

20. Hence, the appellalt is entitled frr air enhanced compensation. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is zr' lowed, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs.3,l4,12Ol- (Rupees Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Twenty only) with interes t @ 7.5% per annum on the enll lnced amount of 10 NNRJ M.A.C M A No 77 of 2o2o compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization The respondent No.2 is directed to deposit the said amount together vvith costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. Petitioner is also r.l directed to pay deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. The collpensation amount sha11 be apportioned to the appellant in the .^l same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. To, Sd/. M. JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR /5\_-./ SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// '1 . The Chairman Nlotor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, Makabubnagar. (With records)

2. One CC to Sri. K Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies AS/DL d I I ATE i1 c, a).t s 6) 21 ttl ,-,+."/ .-)Y:)' w, .:jr. QsStri: HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.77 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA 0 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneou s Appeal No: 77 OF 2020 Between: K.Ganesh, S/o Sattaiah, Age. 23 years, Occ Nawabpet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District. Student, r/o Kollur village of .. Ap pe lla nUClaima n t AND

1. Mohd.Jahangir and Another, s/o lVohd.Kareem, Age. 36 years, Occ. Owner- cum-driver of Car bearrng No. AP-1 1-AC-6622, r/o H.No. 8-13-8511 , !.aghavendra Colony, near. NPA, Shastripuram, Hyderabad., Rangareddy District.

2. The New lndia Assurance Co.Ltd., represented by -its lvlanager, Opp. Modern lligh School, fi/ahabubnagar (Policy No. 613101 31 1 30200002094 valid from 301112014 lo 291O112015 issued byAbids Branch) (Respondent No. 1 remained exparte in the court below and did not contest the claim of the claimants. Hence, lhe Respondents No. 1 impleaded as proforma party and no notice is necessary to him in this appeal) ..Respondents Appeal filed under Section '173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated Dt. 271512019 passed in O.P.No.246 of 2015 on the file of the court of the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District Judge, lvlakabubnagar. 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. K Venkatesh Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal le and is allowed' enhancing the compensation from Rs 1,10'000/- to Fs 3' 14' 12o/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Fourteen Thousand one Hundred and Twer y only) with interest @ 7 .5 % per annum on the enhanced amount of compe t sation from the date of petitron till the date of realization,

2. That the respondent No. 2 is be and hereby is directtr to deposit the said amoUnt together with costs and interest after giving durl :redtt to the amount already deposited, if any, withrn a period of two monthr' orm the receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 3, That the Petitioner is also directed to pay deficit court,]e on the enhanced amounti

4.ThattheCompensationamountshallbeapportionedtctheappellantinthe same manner and ratio as ordered by the learned Triburt l:

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shz I stands confirmed in all other respectsi and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Sd/. III JAWAHAR REDDY ASS,I ;TANT REGISTRAR //,U' SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The chairman Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-curr .l Additional District Judge, lvlahabubnagar.

2. Two CD Copies AS/DL I A HIGH COURT DATED:1a|O712025 DECREE MACMA.No.77 of 2020 ALLOWNG THE MACMA s