The High Court · 2025

Counselfor the Appellant : SRl. S SURENDER REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.l : - counselfor the Respondent No.2 : sRl v. sRtNlvAsA RAo The Court made the following: JUDGMENT G /. 1 Ca,J macma_514_2O19 NBK,I rB H CE E No.51 2019 The appeltant was injured in the accident that occurred on 05'12'2015 at22:30hrs while he was riding a motorcycle from Mancherial to Asifabad, when an otrcoming car bearing No. AP-28K-9875 collided with his motorcycle. He filed a claim petition, namely M'V'O'P' No' 136 of 2017' before the Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad, claiming compensation of Rs. l5 lakhs for the injuries, disability, and loss of earnings suffered due to the accident.

1.1 -the Tribunal, by the impugned order, awarded ofRs.g,14,00,)/- with interest at7.5o/o per annum from the date ofthe petition tilt realization, hotding respondent No. I (owner of the car) and respondent No. 2 (insul'er of the car) jointly and severally liable to pay the quantum of comPensation, the compensation. Aggrieved bY the claimant/injur:d fi led this appeal'

2. Heard I\{r. S. Surender Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant' and Mr. Srinivasa Rao Vutla, leamed Standing Counsel for respondent No' 2- insurance company' Perused the record' It is the contention of the appellant that the Tribunal assessed the 3. income at Rs. 1i,000i- per month despite his claimed income of Rs' 15'000/- per month, and failed to award compensation for the permanent disability of 6lyo. ltis alsc contended that the appellant suffered loss of earnings and future ross of irrcome resulting from the permanent disability. The appellant I \ 2 macma_514_2019 NBK, J therefore seeks the addition of 50Yo of the salary towards future prospects. Further, compensation is sought for pain and suffering, mental agony, attendant charges, and other heads such as compensation for each injury and future prospects, all of which were either omiued or inadequately considered by the lower court.

4. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 05. L2.2Ol5 at22:30 hrs, due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending car bearing No. AP-28K-9875, and the injuries suffered by the appellant in the said accident, are not in dispute.

4.1. There is no rigid formula for assessing the income of an individual in the absence of documentary proof; income assessment may be done by considering the person's occupation and potential to earn. In the present case, the accident occurred in 2015, and the appellant, who is said to be a motorcycle mechanic, claimed he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month. However, no proof of income was filed before the Tribunal. A mere assertion that the claimant worked as a motorcycle mechanic and earned Rs. 15,000i- per month is insufficient; such a claim must be supported by cogent evidence. Admittedly, there is no such evidence. The Tribunal assessed the monthly income at Rs. 5,000/- for calculating compensation. Considering a that motorcycle mechanics perform skilled labour, this Court is of the view that an income assessment of Rs. 6,0001- per month would be reasonable in the facts of the case.

4.2. With regard to the disability, PW-3 deposed that the claimant suffered 61% disability in the left lower limb due to impaired reach (post- , / / ./,,.' 3 macma-514_2019 J '{B( traumatic s,:quela-limb), and Ex.A2l is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The same has not been disputed by the respondents.

4.3. The claimant was 27 years old at the time of the accident. Taking his income at Rs. 6,000/- per month, and as per the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Serftil, future prospects should be c,lnsidered at 40%o for persons under 40 years of age. Thus, the claimant's roonthly income is assessed at Rs. 8,400/- (Rs. 6,000 + 40%). Though pennanent disability was assessed by the Medical Boatd at 6l%o, the Tribuna.L considered functional disability at 7U/o for the purpose of compensation. The resultant loss of income would be Rs. 5,880/- per month, amonnting to Rs. 70,560/- per annum. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 , the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 25- 30 is 17. Ac,:ordingly, the total loss of eaming capacity due to permanent disability is Ib. 70,560 x l7 : Rs. 11,99,520/-.

4.4. 'Ihe Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings during medi,:al treatment. The claimant suffered injuries resulting in permanent disability of 61%, requiring prolonged medical treatment and rest from the manual nature of his work. Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation towards loss of eamings during treatrnent to Rs. 25,0001-.

4.5. With regard to medical expenditure, extra nourishment, damages, and incidental charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,50,000/- against the Rr;. 1,80,000/- claimed by the claimant. Ex.A-22 consists of medical bills amounting to Rs. 74,4811-, duly proved through PW-2. Ex.A8, t lzorzlps scc sao , 2oo9 Aq 1298 t-,, 4 L macma_514_2019 NB(J Ex.A9, Ex.Al1, Ex.A20,Ex.A22, and Ex.A23 were prescribed by MMS Hospital, Hyderabad. Considering the injury suffered and the resultant permanent disability, this Court is inclined to award the full claimed amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering as against the claimed amount of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This Court is of the view that Rs. 50,000/- is just and reasonable under this head.

4.6 Furthermore, as this is a claim petition filed by the injured person, no deduction can be made towards personal expenses, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Lacmon Maruti Jadhaf .At paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier judgment in Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.a, reaffirmed this legal position. " OeAuction towaras person al

16. The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses. The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for deduction of persona/ expenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Couft in the case of Lalan D. (supra)." In view of the foregoing reasons, the bompensation is enhanced as

5. follows: Head Loss of earninqs durinq treatment Medical exoenses. nourishment etc Loss bf-earninqs due to permanent disability Pain and sufferinq Total I Amount awarded bv the Tribunat Rs.1 Rs.1.50.000 Rs.7 Rs.30.000 Rs.9,09,000 Amount awarded bv this Court Rs.25.000 Rs.1.80.000 Rs.11.99.520 Rs.50.000 Rs.14,54,520 (rounded off to Rs.14,55,000) 3 (20231 L3SCC,34 4 (2020) 9 sdSos / 5 macma 514_2019 NBK, J In view of the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the opinion that this

6. is a fit case for enhancement of compensation to Rs. 14155'000/-. However, considering the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra), the rate of interest is reduced frorn 7o/o to 60/o per annum, payable from the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment.

7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.14,55,000/-, while reducing the interest rate to 6%o per annum from the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment. The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation. Any amounts alre,ady paid or deposited towards compensation, if any, shall be duly taken lnto account while disbursing the enhanced. compensation. Miscellaneotrs petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. /TRUE COPY/' SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR a SECTION OFFICER I To, Sessions Judge, Adilabad.

1. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and 2. One CC to SRI. S. SURENDER REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. V. SRINIVASA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD C;opies GE/ABK . Uy i \ h,. 1"$ a_ @ t a Y J !i \r:, r c.i' { . ',trr. 'Iti:i*, #"" $tr c.t.... fu.;." / STATE 1 3 r\ I[N ?t?t J" i ! . HIGH COUR' DATED:17109t12025 Judgment MACMA.No.S14 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOI'VING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 * 5 \--=,.. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT [ 33001 THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCID ENTCtvtL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 514 OF 2019 Between: Mohammad Akheel Ahmed, S/o. Lai Mohammad, Mechanic, Presently nil, handicapped, R/o. H presently residing at Rickshaw Colony, Adilabad. Age. 29 years, Occ. Motor Cycle .No.3-56, Bazanradi, Asifabad, AND ...APPELLAT{T/PETITIONER '1. Gaddam Mahesh, S/o. Narsaiah, Age. 29 years, Occ. Singareni Employe- Cum Driver-cum-owner of car bearing no. AP.28-K-9875, Hanuman Basthi, Bellampalli, Mancherial District.

2. United lndia lnsurance Company Limited, Represented by its Branch Manager, Office. D.No.5-6-171,17111, Main Road NTPC Jyothinagar, Mancherial. (Policy No. 05230131 15P109363878 valid from 14.11 .2015 to13.1 1 .2016) ...RESPONDENTS'RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 07.08.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 136 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and 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 argument of SRI S. SURENDER REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the Respondent No.1, and SRl. V. SRINIVASA RAO, Advocate for Respondent No.2. a This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

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

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced to Rs.14,55,000/-.

3. That the interest rate be and is hereby reduced to 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment.

4. That the claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation and that any amounts already paid or deposited towards compensation, if any, shall be duly taken into account while disbursing the enhanced compensation.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. llTrue Copyll SD/. M JAWAHAR REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER To 1- The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-l Additional District and Sessiorrs Judge, Adilabad.

2. Two CDr Copies. GE/ABK N/ I I / i I HIGH COURT DATED:17l,09t12025 DECREE MACMA.No.514 of 2019 PARTLY ALLOI'VING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 1 Lb