The High Court · 2025

Counset for the Appeltant(s):SRl. C. MOHAN PRAKASH Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.3 : SRl. V. SRINIVASA RAO The Court made the following: JUDGIIIIENT a i : l ! i I I i : THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA JUDGMENT: Heard Sri C'Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri srinivasa Rao Vutra, learned counsel for respondent. No.3. 2' This appt:al is preferred b5r the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the order passed. by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-f'rincipal District Judge, Suryapet (for short, .the TribunalJ in M.v.o.p. No. 206 of 2ots, dated 26.0r.2022. The craim petition was filed on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accidenr. that occurred on 3o.o4.2o1s. The appellant, arong with his friends, w€rs travelling from Kommala to Gunclepuri in a Tavera vehicle bearing No. Ap-24-AT-2842. on the return jour.ey, at about T:3o PM, when the vehicle reached near Gangadevamma. oheruvu Katta on the outskirts of Kommala village, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negiigent manner at high speed and lost control over it. As a result, the vehicle turned turtre, causing grievous injuries to the apperant and. other passengers. one of the passengers, sri poloju Upparaiah, died on the spot. 3. The claimant fired the present appeal seeking compensation of Rs.6,50,ooo/- from *re respondents jointly and severally. In support of the claim petition, the appelrant examined pws. L to 4 and got marked Exs'A1 to 49. Respondent No.s exhibited Ex.B1, a copy of the insurance i-..- Cr\ 'i l I I I I I . 2 policy. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,O00/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not considering the monthly income of the appellant, thereby failed to award compensation under the head of loss of income. It is further submitted that the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board., marked as Ex.A4, clearly indicates a permanent disability of 4Oo/o to the appellant's left leg. However, the Tribunal erroneously treated the same as a temporary disability and did not award any cornpensation towards loss of incorne on account of the said disability. Further, the appellant sought compensation for loss of future prospects, contending that the permanent ankle injury sustained in the accident has resulted in the loss of appellant'S avocation as a dancer.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the

6. absence of any proof of income, the notional income should be considered as at least Rs.9,OOO/- per month. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that where there is no proof of income, the notional income must be determined in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'lcle Supreme Court in Ra;molcho;ndrappa i i I i I il' :i. i, t. l l I I I t, Itl :, !l I i: :! : ; 't ;i' iry: 3 u. Manager, Rogal Sundaro;m Alttance Insurance Comtrtang Limitedt. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said judgment has since been overruled, and therefbre, the notional income cannot be considered on that basis. 7 - Having regard to the rival contentions of both parties and in the absence of documentary evidence regarding income, the notional income of the appellanr is taken as Rs.6,0ool- per month. As per Ex.A4, issued by the District Medical Board, the appellant has sustained 4Oo/o permanent diserbility. considering the nature of the disability i.e., an ankle injury and its likely impact on the appellant,s abiliqr to work, whether as a clancer or as an unskilled labourer, it is evident that it would significantly hinder his earning capaciry*. Accordingly, the functional disability is also taken at 4oo/o. The appellant was aged 27 years as on the date of the accident, and accordingll,, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17. considering the appellant,s age, he is entitled to payment of 4o%o towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation under the head of Loss of income due to disability is calculated as Rs.6,85,440/- {Rs.8,4OO/- (Rs.6,OO0/_ + 4O%l x t2 x 17}x 4Oo/o.

8. coming to the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads i.e., Rs.2,55,oool-, the same is found to be just and '1zor t; 13 scc 236 I I A. reasonable, and. this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings. g. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs.9,4O,440l- instead of Rs.2,55,000/- as was awarded by the Tribunal.

10. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.2,55,O00/- to Rs.9,4O,440l-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9%o per annum on the enhanced amount. The compensation amount shall be deposited by respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy oi this Judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPYII SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUW REGISTRAR G SECTION OFFICER :i t' ! i I I I ! i To, - - 1' The chairDerson, Motor Accident craims Tribunar (principar District ^ {udgq). Suryapei. 2. One CC to SRt. c M.HAN 3. one cc to sRr. v. sRrNrvASA FiAo; A,ir".rtJi6Fucr 4. Two CD Copies GEw Advocate topucl 'RAKASH, n ,, a HIGH COURT DATED:1 8lO7l2A25 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.63 ot 2O23 % II f I .s' s "} ,!i + ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOI.,]' COSTS 6rPq"^ &" ,. 134/.21 IN THE HIG H COURT FOR THE STATE OF TE AT FRIDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FME PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA L IE o Trd Between: Banoth Veeranna, S/o. Bala, than Village of Thungathurthy aged. Mand 27 Yea$, Occ. Dance Master, R/o. Manapuram al. Naloonda District. ...APPELLANT'CLAIMANT AND

1. aged .21 Years, Occ. Car Driver, R/o. Kommala lgond a District (Driver of Tavera bearing No. AP -

2. Reoatti Saidulu, S/o. Avilaiah, aged. Major, R/ o' H'No' 1-8-344' Chinthala ' e#"i;r:$rvIb"i'i.,i'n, t'liigbnd'" Distriit (owner of Tavera bearing No AP 24-AT-7842).

3. The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Rep' by its B'M'' .9pp' Vuetna "' iii"i""k.r.iid"a, 'District-. (P-oJicv-. No' sirvipJi' Torin' Nallond'a bSi6bzeiiacibl2soss2 f v:tiaromzzios.zoft to mid night of 2'l105/2015). - PONDENTS'RESPdNDENTS AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorVehicleAct,againsttheorderand decree dated 26t07t2022 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 206t2O15 on the file of the court of the chairperson, Motor Accident claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge)' Suryapet. 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 thecaseanduponhearingtheargumentofSRlC'M'PRAKASH'Advocateforthe Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No 1 & 2, and SRI V'SRINIVASA RAO, appeared for the Respondent No.3' This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneus Appeal be and is hereby partly allowed.

2. That the compensation amount be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,55,000/- to Rs.9,40,440/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 9Vo per annum on the enhanced amount.

3. That the compensation amount be and is hereby shall be deposited by respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, already deposited.

4. That on deposit by the respondents, the appellant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrue Copyll SD/. A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To

1. The Chairperson, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Suryapet.

2. Two CD Copies. GE Y{ HIGH COURT DATED:18/0712025 DECREE MACMA.No.63 of 2023 {ii Trj I ,| ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ("qfd ffi."