The High Court · 2025

THE H.ON'BLE SRI JUSTI CE NAGESH EMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A o.511 of 2019 JUDGMENT: The appellant is the claimant before the N4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'the Tribunal'). He filed this a;rpeal challenging the judgment dated 19. 10.201 8 passed by the Tribunal in NI.V.O.P. No. 240 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarrJed an amount of Rs. 1,03,290/- as compensation to the claimant for the injurie:s he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.04.2016 at 3:30 PM, while he was travelling in an auto (bearing No. TS-09- IJA-4709). Tfre accident occurred due to a collision between the auto and an oncoming motorcycle, caused by the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, on the outskirts of Bujilapuram village in Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. Disstrtisfied rvith the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal. For c;onvenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the claimant and the insurance company.

2. Heard Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-insurance company. Perused the record.

3. The lr:amed counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the claimant wari employed as the Manager of a poultry farm and was eaming around Rs.2rl,000l- per month. She submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered tris income as Rs.20,000/- per month; that the District Medical Board assesr;ed the claimant's disability at 4AYo, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted appropriate compensation under that head; that the Tribunal awarded interest at 7oA instead of 9o/o; that it should have awarded 2 macma 511 2019 .-r I NBK, J Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs; that Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded towards loss of earnings instead of Rs.6,000/-; and that Rs.1,00,000/- should have been awarded towards medical expenses instead of Rs.43,290l-. She contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs. 1,03,290/-.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company justifies the impugned judgment and award, contending that there is no evidence to support the claim that the claimant earned Rs.20,0001- per mo1th. He submits that the compensation awarded under the various heads does not warrant interference.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 03 .04.2016 at3:30 PM due to a collision between the auto (No. TS-09-UA-4709), in which the claimant was travelling, and an oncoming motorcycle is not in dispute.

5.1 With regard to the claimant's income, the Tribunal specifically recorded that the claimant had not produced any evidence to support his assertion that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a poultry farm manager. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Mere assertion that the claimant worked as a manager and earned Rs.20,0001- pet month is insufficient; such a claim must be supported by cogent evidence. As there is admiuedly no such evidence, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal's assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- per month is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5.2 Regarding medical treatment and the expenditure incurred,.the claimant produced Ex.A7-medical bills amounting to Rs.43,291l- before the Tribunal. He suffered a grievous head injury, multiple bodily injuries, a closed fracture of the right femur shaft, and a fracture of the right patella. He also \ \ I I 3 macma_511_2019 NBh, J suffered a perrnanent disability of 40Yo, as reflected in Ex.A5-the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The Tribunal awarded Rs.43,290l- towards medical expenses and extra nourishrnent. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under this head to Rs.75,000/-.

5.3 PW-2, the doctor who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant (PW-l ) suffere d 40% disability due to injury to the right knee joint and is unable to move his right knee. Although the Tribunal noted that PW-2 was not clear about the basis on which he assessed the disability at 40o/o, the Ex.A5 disability ceftificate issued by the District Medical Board is not disputed. Theretbre, this Court is inclined to accept the permanent disability at 40%.

5.4 '['he claimant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.6 000/- per month. As per the judgrnent in National Insurance Company Lir.nited v. Pranay Sethit, future prospects should be considered at 40o/o for perscns under 40 years of age. Thus, the claimant's monthly income is assessed at Rs.8,4001- (Rs.6,000 + 40o ). Given that he suffered 40% permanent disability, the resultant loss of incorne would be Rs.3,3601- per month, amorrnting to Rs.40,3201- per annum. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2,the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 25_30 is 17. Accordingly, the total loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability is Rs.40,320 x 17 : Rs.6,85,4401-. The Tribunal had awarded Rs.50,000/- rorvards perrnanent disability and pain and suffering. In light of the law laid dovvn in Pranay Sethi (sup.a), the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,85,4401- 1 (20171) X. uro 2 (2009) 5 scc 121 t lr! i i . : ; I i I ! I i , i i, i I. i I I I I ! I t II 4 macma 511 2019 --. :I I I I i l 1 NBK, J towards loss of earning capacity. Additionally, this Court awards Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, bringing the total to Rs.7,00,000/- (rounded off)..

5.5 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. Laxman Maruti Jadhaf . At paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier judgment in Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.4, reaffirmed this legal position. "Oeauction towaras per

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 iustification for deduction of personalexpenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan D. (supra) "

5.6 The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothes and other items, and Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. This Court finds the amounts awarded under these heads to be just and reasonable. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation is enhanced as

6. follows: Head Loss of earnings during treatment Transport charges Medical expenses and nourishment Damaqes to clothes Loss of earnings due to permanent disability and pain and sufferinq Amount awarded by the Tribunal Amount awarded bv this Court Rs.6,000 Rs.2,000 Rs.43,290 Rs.2,000 Rs.50,000 Rs.6,000 Rs.2,000 Rs.75,000 Rs.2,000 Rs.7,00,000 Total Rs.1,03,290 Rs.7,85,0O0 \ \ 3 (2023) 13 scc 334 4 (2020) 9 SCC 80s 5 macma_511_2019 NBK, J In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singhs, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

7. the Court/Trillunal must award just compensation and that it may enhance the compensatior if rvarranted by the fucts. In light of the disparity between the compensatior arvarded by the Tribunal and that calculated in accordance with the larv laid down in Pranay Sethi(supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), this Court finds the present case to be fit for enhancement in line with the principles set out in Nagappa (supra). However, in view of Sarla Verma (supra), the interest rate is reduced f,r<lm 7o/o to 6Yo per annum, from the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment.

8. Accor<lingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,85.000/-, while reducing the interest rate to 6%o per annum uniformly from the date of tlte claim petition until the date of actual payment. The claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation. Any amounts already paid or deposited towards compensation, if any, shall be duly taken into account while disbursing the enhanced compensation. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ANT REGISTRAR /TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chtrirman ft/otor Accident Claims Nalgonda. 2. One CC to 3. One CC to 4. Two CD CoPies Sri Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate [OPUC] Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate IOPUC] SECTION OFFICER ncipal District Judge, AS/kam Yt' s 2oo3 (2) scc2i4 ' i I!E!1 t r', " ta''r' , rl: HIGH COUIRT DATED i1710912025 / t\E STATTF q '-J o .L! t tltrs ts8 {J l:;*e,c lti'":- 1 & J' JUDGMENT MACMA.lrlo.S11 of 2019 ALLOWED 6#^ -$d} I : ) t E I I i liI l , i i i [ 3300 l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA Between: Palwai Srinivas Reddy, S/o. Narayana Reddy M.A.C.M.A.No: 511 0F 2019 .AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Are Ramulu, S/o. tMuthaiah 2. TATA AIG General lnsurance Company Ltd., 4th Floor, Block - A, My Home Tycoon, Kundanbagh, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500 016, Telangana State Rep. by its Authorised Signatory, (Policy Cover Note No.GP20561851, valid from 7-1 1-2015 to 06-11-2016) ... Res pon d e nts/Res pon d e nts Appeal under Section 173 of ft/otor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No.24O of 2016 dated 19-10-2018 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. T,his appeal coming on for hearing and upon per:using 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 Annapurna Sreeram, Advocate for the Appellant and Sri Kota Subba Rao, Advocate for the Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the tr/otor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is allowed by enhancing the compensation to Rs.7,85,000/- white reducing the interest rate @ 6% per annum uniformly form the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment;

2. That the claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation; 3. That any amounts already paid or deposited towards compensation, if any, shall be duly taken into account while disbursing the enhanced compensation; 4. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 5 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Sd/. M. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// N OFFICER The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. Two CD Copies To, 1 2 AS/kam Yk HIGH COURT DATED i17 10912025 DECREE MACMA.hlo.S1 1 of 2019 ALLOWED .rgd \{ ,F ^&