O/- per month in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co.Ltdl, and calculated annuai income o

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellanl -claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (ltrr short ('the Act, 1988J being unsatished with compensation awarded under Award and decree, dated t5.05.20i9, M.V.O.P.No.159 oi 2015 passed by the learnecl chairman, Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum- Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabacl (for short, 'the Tribunall.

2. For the sake of convenience, the partie s are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that o. 26.12.2014 at about 9:3ct AM., while the claimant was pro<:eeding on his motorcycle from Kag]r'aznagar to Mancherial and when he reached AC corner road near ACC chowrastha, Mancherizrl. all of a sudden one TATA vista car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 driven by respondent No.l came from wrong side in a rash and negligent manner with a high speed and dashed his motorcycle, resulting which the claimant fell down on the ground an<l sustained crush injury to his left lower limb, fracture to right tibia, injury on frontal region, injury on root, nose and injuries to all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant \r/as shifted to I i 2 rvrvR mdcmo_27r_n20 Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there he was shifted to Orchid Hospital, Karimnagar, u,here he admitted as inpatient and doctors conducted several tests and debridement and external fixation was done and thereafter he was discharged on 10.O1.2015 with an advice to take bed rest and to follow up treatment. Due to non-healing of injury of his right tibia, the claimant again admitted in the said hospital and doctors conducted surgical operation and interlocking nail tibia of right leg and skin grappling was done and discharged on 13.02.2015 with an advice to take bed rest and to follow up treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.5,0O,OO0/- towards medical expenses.

4. Based on the complaint, the police Mancherial registered a case in Crime No.459 of 2014 and frled charge sheet against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years, he was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,0OO/- per month as a Fisherman. Due to the said accident, the claimant was not able to attend his regular and routine works and he has incurred financial problems and mental agony. Hence, the claimant hled claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.10,OO,O00/- under all heads

5. Respondent Nos.l and 2 did not contest the matter and remained ex parte. i, 3 AI/YR,' mocdo_2 7 1_2020

6. Respondent No.3-insurance comp€rn1i filed counter- affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition including the age, avocation and income of the claimant and also the manner of the accident. It is stated that r-h<: driver of rATA vista car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 is not hzrving valid and effective driving licence, which is violation of policy conditions, hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is further stated in the counter that there is non-joincler of necessary parties i.e., the insurer and owner of motorcycle on which the claimant was proceeding as the accident took plzrce due to head and collision between the motorcycle and the curr, hence, they are proper and necessary parties to the petition. It is further stated that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive exorbitant zts such the petition is liabie to be dismissed.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the l'ribunal framed the following issues "1. whether the pleaded accident had occurred resurting in injuries to the claimant Nikhil Mallick @ Mallick Nikhil rlue to rash and negligent manner and high speed driving oi'car bearing Ap- O1-AB-9909 by its driver? whether the petitioner is entitled to any compr:nsation, and if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the. respondents? To what reliefl?"

3. il'l 4 (- aacno-27r-2o2o

8. During the course of enquiry, the claimant himself examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2, the Doctor, who examined through Advocate Commissioner and got marked as Exs.A.1 to A.25. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the crime vehicle involved in the accident was validly insured with respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.1, being driver, respondent No.2, being owner and respondent No.3, being insurance company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.7,34,3481- to the claimant with interest at 7.5o/o per annum. There is no dispute that no cross appeal is preferred by the insurance company. 1(). Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and as to the liability fixed upon the respondent- insurance company, in the absence of there being any appeal preferred by the insurance company, it can be presumed that the respondent-insurance company has no grievance regarding the liability and the quantum.

11. The appellant has preferred the present appellant contending that though the appellant stEtd.rea 50% disability 5 mocno_271_2020 only, Tribunal has taken the disability at 25o/o. But, on perusal of the record, it clearly shows that there is no single piece of document to show that the claimant sustained disability of 50%. In support of his contention, he relied on the evidence of P.W.2, the Doctor who said to have treated him.

1.2. No doubt, the Tribunal can look int<> the evidence of P.w.2 and cught to have considered the same as tre is a competent person who assessed the disability which is stated by him in his evidence. Ttrough there is a disability certificate, no percentage is mentioned in the said certificate. However, the said certificate r.r,as accepted by the Tribunal, in spite of there being no disability mentioned by the Medical Board taking the disabitity at 2so/o for calculating the compensation towards loss of future earnings.

13. I.earned Standing Counsel for re:spondent No.3- Insuance company vehemently contended that in the absence of any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the assessment made by the Tribunal taking 25o/o as the notional disability and awarding compensation is not proper. Bur, considering the fact that P.w.2 being the doctor, who has treated the claimant, has specifically stated in the evidence that there is disability of 50%.

14. Lr:arned rribunal having considered the evidence of P-w.2, the doctor who treated P.w. 1, has taken the clisabitity of the 6 N'VR/ rucmo-271_2020 r-'. claimant at 25o/o. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there is nothing more to consider in the absence of any other proof placed by the claimant and the said linding given by the Tribunal not been questioned by respondent No.3, as such this Court does not find any ground to interfere with, in respect of assessing disability assessing 25o/o by the Tribunal and accordingly calculating the compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

15. The contention of the claimant is that at the time of accident he is hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.15,00O1- per month by doing fisherman work and maintaining his family. But, no material is placed on record to show that he is getting the said amount by doing fisherman work. At time of accident, he is aged about 45 years. But, according to the Tribunal the claimant was aged about 46 years. Admittedly, except oral evidence, there is no documentary evidence filed by the claimant in support of his contention that he is earning ount of Rs.15,OO0/- month, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the' deceased at Rs.4,5OO/- per month in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co.Ltdl, and calculated annuai income of the claimant (4500 x 12) = Rs.54,0OO/-. At this juncture, the Tribunal also relied on the the landmark judgment of 'zorr loyelo 7s (sc) \- It \ 7 nocno_277_2020 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others2 wherein it was held that at an additional of 25% should be regarded as nooessary method of computation 'u,,here the deceased was between l.he age of 4O to 5O _years. In the present case, as the claimant was 46 years and he admittedly self-employed, therefore, an additional 21o/o of the established income has been taken towards future prospects and arrived the annual income of the claimant_ at Rs.67,500/-. Tribunal has rightly assessed the entire compensation under the head of loss of future earnings on the grotrnd of permanent disability and so also the Tribunal was rightly considered the medical bills and expenses which incurred by tht: appellant.

16. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel on either side and considering the entire material placed on record including the judgment cited, in the Award passed by the Tribunal at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, this Courr- does not find any ground eitl-..er to enhance or reduce the compensation or any other grounds to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal so also the compensation which is awarded, by this court the compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair which needs no interference. Hence, I do not see any grounds to interfere wir--h the judgment and award passed b1' the Tribunal. For 'ArR 2017 sc 51:;7 8 NNN ndcmd_277_m20 the said reasons, the appeal of the appellant falls to the ground and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no ord.er as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Sd/-M. OSMAN ALI BAIG SISTANT REGI I / SECTION OFFICER District & //TRUE COPY/I To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribun Sessions Judge, Adilabad'

2. One cc to sli 5, Surender Reddy, Advocate_[oPuc] 3. One CC to Sri M'A.K. Mukheed, Advocate [OPUC] 4.Onecctorrlr.A.RamaKrishnaReddy,AdvocateIoPUC] 5. Two CD CoPies KH&amI \ \ HIGH COURT DATED i12l06l2025 1E {i> Eo.tr- *a\ \ \ HT: r-l n-_ JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.271 ot 2O2A DISMISSING THE MACMA * IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3443 I THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA Between: M.A.C.M.A.No: 271 OF 2020 Nikhil Mallick@ Mallick Nikhil, S/o. late tvlallick Gopal, Age. 50 years, Occ. Fisherman, R/o.H.No.4-9311 Nagral Nagar-3, Easgaon, RyM. Kaghaznagar, Adilabad District. AND

1. Ghulam Khaza Saleemuddin, Slo. Alimuddin, Age. 38 years, Occ. Driver of Vista Car bearing No. AP.01.A8.9909, R/o. H.No.4-390, Jaffar Nagar, ...AP P E LLANT/PETITION E R Mancherial, Adilabad District.

2. Korakoppula Sravan, S/o. Raja Goud, Age. Major, Occ. owner of TATA Vista Car, Bearing no. AP.01.A8.9909, R/o. 3-98, Shetpalli Village, R/M. Jaipur, Adilabad District.

3. United lndia lnsurance Cornpany Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Eranch Office. Laxmi cornplex, Post CCC Naspur, Chennur Road, Mancherial, Adilabad District. (Policy valid from 03.12.2014 to 02.12.2015) ...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree dated 15-05-2019 made in M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor"Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District & Sessions Judge, Adilabad. 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 arguments of Sri S. Surender Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, Advocate for the Respondent No.1 & 2 and SriA. Rama Krishna Reddy, Advocate for Respondent No.3. =:--7,/ This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is dismissed; and 2. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/-M. OSMAN .ALI BAIG ASS REG S ON OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ncipal District & Sessions Jurige, Adilabad.

2. Two CD Copies KH/karn E HIGH COURT DATED:1210612025 /r % LL ,t- ",$) jr, +:- C., \ ,9ct i'i + DECREE MACMA.No.271 of 2020 DISMISSING THE MACMA \