Ch. L.B. Priya Dlo. Satyanarayana v. 1. M/s Narayana Educational Society

Judgment

M.A.C.M.A.No.2O1 of 2O2O is preferred by the claimant and M.A.C.M.A.No.441 of 2O2O is preferred by the insurance Company against the Award and decree passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabacl, (hereinafter referred to 'lezrned Tribunal,) in O.p.No. 1282 of 20 13, dated 05.09.2O19, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 22,23,954 l- along with 9yo interest p.a. for the i.juries sustained by the claimant in an road accident occurred on 29.L2.2O I l.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinaJter referred to as they are arrayed belore the learned Tribuna].

3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant earlier iiled O.P.No. l2B2 of 20 13 under Section 166 read with Section 14O (c) of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for injuries sustained by her. On 29.12.2011, the petitioner was proceeding towards her residence in Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.Ap 09_BF_7335 and when the petitioner was proceeding slowly on the extreme 2 r\IJVR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.ilt 7&447o 2020 left of the road and reached near KPHB Colony, t: : driver of the Swaraj Mazda Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145, dror : his bus with high speed in a rash and neglige nt manner an ( took sudden right turn without giving any signals and dashed -rc petitioner's car due to which the petitioner and Sri Srikantlr (Driver of the car) sustained multiple fracture and grievous injur es all over the body. The petitioner rvas taken to Anupama Ll spital, KPHB, Kukatpally for treatment. The Police registere : a case, vide Crime No.122l2OlI, against the Bus driver under Section 337 of IPC 4 . The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the petitioner was l ale and health and was aged about 23 years and was earning Rl; t,00,000/- per month, as she was cine artist by profession anc Modeling Industry and worked with various used work in rrands in the markets for their promotionai adds in print and : --ctronic media and also work as freelancer in Event manaf! accident, claimant suffered head injury all ment. Due to I deep facial lacerations on the face and undergone multiple : astic surgeries f- di"figr.ution of face and the petitioner fz,' e lost natural charm for which she lost a1l her modeling and act ng project's, for /.,t 3 }/JVR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.ZO7 &, 447 of 2O2O which claimant claimed Rs.25,00,000/- for the said accident, as compe n sation.

5. Before the learned Tribunai, respondent No. 1-Driver of the Bus remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-lnsurance Company filed counter-affidavit, rlenving all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and denied that claimant uras hit by Crime Vehicle and denied the disfiguration of the face of the petitioner and contended that there was a violation of mandatory provisions under Section 143 (c) of M.V.Act, since the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of the poiicy date, time, place of accident, particulars of injury and name of the driver and driving license pa-rticulars and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues u,hich reads as under: i) Whether the accident took pLace due to rash and negligent driuing of the uehicle beoring No.AP-28-X-8 ] 4 5 caus[ng injuies to the petitioner? ii) Whetlrcr the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to Luhat extent ond from tuhom? / €"/ 4 M.A.C.M.A.Ag IV]VR.J 2O7 & 447 oF 2O2O iii) To uthat relief.>

7. During the course of tria,l, PWs.1 to 4 u,r.r l examined and Exs.A1 to A30 and Ex.XI are marked on behalf of the clatmant. Ex.B 1 is marked on behalf of respondents. .Al :r perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into he entire record and the evidences placed by both the parli 's, the learned Tribunal ailor.r,ed the claim petition in p€ . and granted r compensation of Rs.22,23,9541- along u,ith int 'rest@9okper

8. Being unsatisfied and aggrievecl by 1L , compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the ;resent appeals were filed by both the claimant and responder-rt No.2 Insurance Company.

9. Learned counsel lor the claimant submits hat there is no dispute with regard to accident and the injuries r ustained by the petitioner. The petitioner was 23 years at the tinr ol the accident and she was quite hale, healthy and after t raduation, the petitioner j.oined Paulus Software Technologies Fr vate Limited as associate work. It is contended that the pet r oner was very beautiful and u.as having attracting natural face was seiected as freelancer in Event Man a r lue to which he 3ment by big \ 5 N-IVR.J M.A.C.M.A.No, 20l & 441 of 2O2O companies, thereafter she got arr opportunity to excel talent and ski1l in modelling industry, where she got offer roles in Telugu and Tamil Movies. The petitioner went to abroad for shooting of the movies for about tu,o month and day by day petitioner was becoming famous as a Model, Anchor, Event Manger ald Movie Artist and the petitioner participated in many TV channels and advertisements and she had done nearly 17 4 programmes as Event Manger and her work rvere reflected in the newspapers and magazines (Ex.A27 to Ex.A3O) and the petitioner used to earn Rs. i,0O,000/ Per month. ...--1. 1o, fvn I _ I 0. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that d.ue to accident, the petitioner suffered multiple lacerations over right cheek scalp and right eye brow, total facial injuries causing disfiguration of face and other injuries on al1 over the body. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Anupama Hospital, Hyderabad and admitted in the hospital as inpatient from 29.t2.2OI1 to 30.12.2011 and was under IV antibiotics, analgesics, antipyretics. Thereafter, the petitioner undergone multiple surgeries for the disfiguration of face and underwent surgery for her eye-lid. The petitioner has spent huge amount for the surgeries, extra-nourishment, private attentl#t, hospital I I I NAIR.J M.A.C.M.A.No 2Ol & 447 of 2O2O charges. As her face was badly injured ar d become un 6 appeaseable, the petitioner career went complete v down and the petitioner lost all her projects and suffered financially and mentally 1 1. Learned counsel for the claimar-rt further s rbmits that the learned Tribunal having accepted the contentior of the claimant that the accident occurred due to rash and ne[ igent driving of the crime bus and also accepted the lact th., the petitioner suffered huge financial loss and suffered 1OO(l/o lisabrlitl' due to face disfiguration, but the learned Tribunal hiL r,r,rongly taken the income of the petitioner on lower side rvitl tr-Lt considering the income certificate i.e., Ex.A17 to A30 and a I ;o oral evidence of PW4-Sri Kottu Babu, Production and lixed : rtional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/ per mcr th and granted less compensation. The learned Tribunal had r,, ongly deducted 1/3.,1 towards personal expenses which is agairL t t.he la',r,, as in injury case there shall not be any deductions ._, \\'ards personal expenses and also gralted meager compensatio under various heads ald prayed this Court to enhance tlL compensation amount- 7 IVIVR.J M.A.C.M.A,No.2 07 & 441 of 2020

12. Per contra, Iearned counsel for Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the excessive and exorbitant compensation of Rs.22,23,954rl - along with 9% interest p.a., and the learned Tribunal grossly erred in awarding the compensation of Rs. 14,1 l,12Bl- in the absence of disability certificate by considering I 00% disability and loss of earning in the absence of documentary evidence and further submitted that the claimant failed to prove that the loss of future earnings and the non-availability of future opportunities in her career.

13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and sufferance for simple inj ure s in the absence of pleadings and Rs.2,00,000/ tor,vards loss of amenities and erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.22,23,954 l- along with 9oh interest per annum under all heads u,hich is highly excessive and exorbitant and accordingly prayed this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and allou' the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. \-: \ '- JVAR,J M.A.c. M. A. N2 2 e1_e_111_eI_2o2 Q 14. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddg, learnec counsel for the B claimarrt and Sri V, Sambasiua Rao, learned :ounsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the material on re: rrd 1 5. Admittedly, the both the parties have filerl appeals against the Arvard passed by the learned Tribunal. I r such, there is dispute regarding liability of the respondents ar 1 income of the petitioner. Therefore, the points which arose bel re this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: i) Whether the respondents con be exonerak( frotn their liabilitg? If so to what extent? ii) Whether the Tibunal has rightlg assessed tl z income of the petitioner. iii) Whether tle petitioners are entitled for t)t enhanced compensation, if so, to u.thot extent? Point Nos:1 to 3

16. Admittedly, the petitioner suffer:ed grie\'. r ces injuries on the face and al1 over the body due to accid r -rt occurred on

29.12.2011. The petitioner was a cine artist €{ on lhe date of accident. trx.Al and A2 t.e, FIR and Charge-r; cet shon.s that driver of the Crime Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-t 45 as accused The bus driver have admitted the offenses befor , the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabir '. on 26.O5.2O12 1n C.C.No.174l2ol2 and paid fine of Rs.SOt however the 9 JV,IVR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.2OL & 447 o 2020 driver of the crime bus did not appear or file counter-affidavit denying the charges leveied against him before the Tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, it can be safely arrived that the accident occurred due to rash ar-rd negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-B 145, hence the respondents cannot be exonerated from their liability. Accordingly Point No. 1 is answered in favour of claimar-rt and against respondents. 17 . As far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner before the learned Tribunai has stated she used to earn about Rs.20,000/ - per month, however as per Ex.A25, the total income of the petitioner was shown as Rs. 1,84,000/ per annum. On keen perusal of the Ex.A25, one Sal Mohan-Le Assoclate has issued the said Ex.A25, but there is no date of issuance of said certificate ald aiso there is no heading for issuance of such certificate, nevertheless the petitioner has not filed any Income Tax acknowledgment receipt issued by the Government of India, which will be provided after filing of Income Tax return and also the petitioner has not examine d the said person who issued Ex.A25. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the petltloner AS Rs.7,000/- which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 10 I{IV:R.J M.A.C.M.A.NI 2O1 & 441 of 2O2O \

18. The learned Tribunal relied upon the ru i rg laid dolr,n 1n Rekha National Insurance Compang Limitec| wherein, it was heid that 100% functional disability shali be talr n, even without 100% disability certificate, while accessing rl sability for the actress u,ho cannot w,ork in films or Televisior-r ierials in future due to injuries sustained on the fair and the re1: 'ant paragraphs are extracted for read reference: "38. For ct Jilm. ct.ctress, tte physical appearar the faciol features are uery important to act itl t T.V. seic s. It is in her euidence that on t accident her face uas disfigured, she has put has become fat and therefore she is unabLe kt r os on actress in films in future. Hauing regard t uocation she hos been carrying on and uLislt rrith tn future, the opporfitnitg is lost on r disfi,gurement of her face, to act in the film.s either cts a heroine or actress in supporting ro, role to be plaged in T.V. seials, albams and cI It is in the euidence of the oppellant thot as 1 Medical Board of Sambalpu1 her permanent d : Ilauing regard to the nature of injuies and olts t bg this Cottrl and Karnataka High Court in tlu to supra, ue haue to record a ftnding L':,1' ctppellant's permanent disability should be 0 e functionaL disablement as she connot act in tt T.V. serictls in future at all. Therefore, on ( :e porticulctrLy e fi-Lns and ut :count oJ the )n ueight ond trfonn the role t the nature of s to canll on :count o-f the 7s an actress : or ang other o as a m.odel. er the Distnct :tbilit!1 is 30?i. "uations m.ade :ases referced fact that the ted cLs 1 00%o t Jilms and itt :count of the '20i3 ACJ 2161 (sc) - 11 NJVR.J M.A.C.M.A.N0.2OL & 447 of 2O2O aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disabilitg. In this regard, it is releuant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmed[15]. This Court hos held thot loss of eaming capacity is not o substitute for percentage of phg sicol disoblement. lt is simpLy one of tlrc factors token into account to auard just ond reasonable compensotion. Euen though the claimant does not suffer from 100o/o phgsical permanent disability, he suffers from 1OO% functional disability if he loses the copacitA to pursue his utork as a result of the occident. It is worthtuhile to extract paragroph no. 8 from the aforesaid judgment u,thich reads as under: "8. ,Loss of earning capacity ts, therefore, not e substitute for percentage of the phgsical disablement. It is one of the factors taken into account. In the instant case the doctor uho examined the claimant olso noted about the functional disablement. In other uords, the doctor had taken note of the reLeuant foctors reLctting to loss of earning capacity. Without indicating anA reason or basis the High Court held that there uos 1OO7u loss ol eaming capacilg.""

19. ln view of the judgmenL cited abovc, thc lcarnccl Tribunal has rightly taken the 1O0% functional disability, as the petitioner lace was disfigure ar-rd for the film actress or cine artist, thc physical appearance particularly the facial leatures are very important to act in films. .- \ +@t 12 N,IVR,J M.A.C.M.A.N(. tO7 & 447 of 2O2O 20. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.42,0OO/ . towards loss of earning, Rs.5,00,00/ towards pain ar I sufferance, Rs.2,00,000/ tor.r.ards loss of amenities ar d Rs.67,95,+/- tou,ards medical expenses and Rs.1O,00O/- Lwarded under transport and other expenditure which appears t r be reasonable and on ground realties and needs no interferenc,: 2l . The learned Trrbunal has deducted l, .a of personal expenses from the notional income of the petitio r :r, which ought not have been deducted and the personal ded,-r:tion applies in death cases. In Rahul Ganpatrao Sable os I a-x.man Marruti Jadhaa (non-reportablep, dated O5,O7.2O23 reld that there could not be anv justification for deduction of p: sonal expenses in the injury cases and the relevant paragrir ,h is extracted hereunder for ready reference "The High Couft deducted 50ok of compens personal experLses. The present case beint and the claim not being made bg tlrc depe, same being bg a suruiuor in the accide " injuies resulting into permanent disabilitg, ; be ang justification for deduction of personc'., do not approue the said deduction in uieu.1,o. of this Court in the case of Lalan D (supra)." ttiort towards not of death 7ents, brtt the tuith seuere tere could not expenses. We the judgment 'z s.L.c.1c1 No.26871 of 2019 ,l? Nr\fR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.2O7 & 447 of 2O2o 22. Hence considering the above judgment, it carr be safely arrived that it is well established principle that claimalt is entitled for ful1 notional income without arry personal dedication ln lnJury cases

23. On overail re appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation AS modihed and recalculated as below and given in the table for easv reference 24 . The monthly income of the petitioner can be notionallr, taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Apart from that, S per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited. I/s. Pranag Sethi and otherss and considering the age of the petitioner as 23 years, which is not disputed by either of the parties, additional 4Ook of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthiy income of the petitioner would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/-) and the 3 2411 ACJ2t00 /, U-v t4 NNR.J 2e L & 447 of 2o2o would come to 1s 1'17'600/- A. c.M .No. M. .A annual income of the Petitioner (Rs.9,8O0/- x 12 months)' 25. As per the coiumn No 4 of Table fixed in the Hon'bie Apex Court in Scrla Vermq rt' D Corporationa' and considering the age of the years, the appropriate multiplier applicabie for age is '18'' Thus' the total loss of income the come n'ith 100'l/o disability come to Rs'21'16'8( 1B x i00%) IIead f-Amou-ni atrived at I Tribunal by thc Loss of f on accou uture earnlng nt of disa bilitl' Six Monrh Loss of S Pain and Suffcrance f amenitles l,{lss o Medical Expcn ses T.;;;p;.;tk'n and olho ex CNSCS Total Rs.I'1' t 1 1)Al Rs.42,O0O/- Rs.5,0O, 000/' o00/' s4l Rs.2,0O, Rs.67,9 Rs.I O,O0O RS, Rounded '; z,s t,0 off to 2 821- 2,23, 954 -l e judgment of tlhi TransPort 1 etitioner as 23 ' the Petitioner's retitioner "vould ) /'(117.600/- x Arr )unt arrive d at by this Court Rs.21'1 6,8OO/- Rs.42,O00/ Rs.5,OO, 000/' Rs.2,00, 000/ Rs.67.95 Rs.1O,0 00/- Rs. 29'3i,zsq I l r l I l ol' 2O2O filed by the 26. Accordingly' the M'A'C'M'ANo'2O1 claimant is allowed and M'A'C'M'A' No'441 t f 2O2O filed b-v the lnsurance Companl' rs dismissed' The claimz -rt is entitled for an compensation of Rs' 29'g6'7541- (Twentll Nine Lakh Thirty o 2oog ncJ 1298 (sc) [* !tffi; - i,L=;E,i -iiit-.- _t l I I l I I I I l 15 .IVAR.J M.A.C.M.A.No.2O7 & 441 of 2O2O Six Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty Four Rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 9 oh p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition ti1l the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the arnount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However, the claimant is directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shal1 be no order as to cosls.

27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand clo sed. SD/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. One CC to SRI P.RAIVAKR|SHNA REDDY, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRI V.SAMBASIVA RAO, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies KVB/nvb HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 -..'- ic-: 'c 1 1 (LB 1$?$ n' L ,-- 1,' o .() I i-t r\-;/^ \ \v,' ,:( l( i I COMMON JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.Nos.201 and 44'l of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA.N 0.201 OF 2CI,IO AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.N0.441 OF 2t'20 V [ 3443 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA M.A.C.M.A.Nos: 201 and 441 OF 2020 Between: Ch. L.B. Priya D/o. Satyanarayana, Aged:30 years Occ: Model, Anchor, Event Manager and [\4ovie Artist, R/o. H. No.3-6-580/4/2, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad - 500 029 ...Appellant AND '1. M/s Narayana Educational Society, D.No.3-5-50, Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad - 500 029

2. The United India lnsurance Company Limited, Reptd. by its Divisional lt/anager T.P.Hub, ll Floor, Posnett Bhavan, Tilaknagar, Ramkote, Hyderabad - 500 001 ...Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No: 441 of 2020 Between: United lndia lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by lts Divisional Manager, TP HUB, 2nd Floor, Posnett Bharian, Tilak iLoad, Rdmkote, Hyderabad-s0b OO1. ...AppellanUR2 in O.P AND

1. Ch. L.B. Priya, Dlo. Satyanarayana, 30 Years, Model Anchor, H.NO .3-6- 58Ol N2, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

2. M/s. Narayana Educational Society, D.NO.3-5-50, Vittalwadi, Narayanaguda, Hyderabad-500029. (Owner of Bus NO. AP 28X 8145) ... RespondenUPetitioner in O.P. ...RespondenU Respondent-1 in O.P. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act againsi he order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1282 of 2013 dated 05.09.2019 on the file lf the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional ( hief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon pert I appeal, the.ludgment and Decree of the Lower Court and tr the case and upon hearing the argument of Sri P.Rama Krit;l for the Appellant in MACMA .No.201 of 2020 and Responri No.441 of 2020 ot 2020 and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, Advocate f : MACMA.No.201 ol 2020 and Appellant in MACMA.No.441 ol 2( ng the grounds of I mateiial papers in na Reddy, Advocate nt No.l in MACMA Respondent No.2 in t0. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 That the both Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appei I No.201 of 2020 be and hereby are allowed and filed by the claimant MACI\ A No.441 of 2020 is dism issed.

2. That the claimant be and hereby is entitled for i n compensation of Rs.29,36,7541 (Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty Six thousan<l rnd Seven Hundred and Fifty four Rupees only) with interest at the rate r t @ 9% p.a on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of ealization.

3. That the respondents be and hereby are directed to de,t together with costs and interest after giving due credit t, deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a co: 4. That on such deposit, the claimant be and hereby is en rsit the said amount the amount already 'of this Judgment. itled to withdraw the same without furnishing any surely.

5. That the claimant be and hereby is directed to pay the i enhanced amount within two months from the date of re Judgment. rficit court fee on the eipt of a copy of this .

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sherl stands confirmed in all other respects: and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SDi- I I. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI ;TANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum., IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies KVR/nvb HIGH COURT DATED:0810912025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.201 and 441 of 2020 ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.201 OF 20',10 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA.No.441 OF 2120