Heard Sri v. Sambasiva Rao

: Sri K.Harimohan Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Sri V.Sambasiva Rao The Court made the following : COMMON JUDGMENT w r THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.53O of 2019 & 576 of 2Ol9 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Heard Sri V. Sambasiva Rao, learned counSel for the claimant and Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the record.

2. Since the facts of the case, the issues involved, the parties and the Order under challenge, in both these appeals are one and the same, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. Challenging the Order, dated 06.12.2O18, passed M.V.O.P.No.1516 of 2Ol4 by the learnecl XI Aclditional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the National Insurance Company Limited preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.576 of 20 19 seeking to set aside the impugned Order and the claimant preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.53O of 2Ol9 seeking enhancement of compensation

4. The claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that took place on 19.O3.2O14 at about 10.00 P.M. while 2 he was proce:eding by foot and was dashed by mrtorc_vcle bearing No.AP 28 DJ 6798 u,hich was driven by the rider i I high speed in a negligent m:lnner near Terminal bus stop, Kukatpally. The Tribunal ar.r,arded compensation oi Rs.4,94,200/ u.ith interest at 9ok per annum.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal failed to au,ard any amount towards loss of earning capacit5,, thor-rgh the claimant was a highl-y experir,r-rr:ed and skilled '*'elder-cum-fabricator. Though P.W.2-doctor, u ho treatecl the claimalt, deposed that the loss of earning capacit., of tl-re claimant was 557n, as r:he claimant cannot sit, squaf, stand cr walk normall1, arld calnot lilt rvcrghts with right arm and there is a stiflness of left knee and ankle and shoulder, however, tht. Tribunal has erroneously consiclered the disability of the claima nt as 21oh. It is also contencled that the Tribunal ought to have au,arded Rs.72,OO0/- towards loss of earnings instead of Rs.30,OOO/-, estimation of Rs.35,0OO/- for the removal of implrnts, Rs.2,OO0/ towards damage to ciothing instead of Rs.1,OO0/ ; Rs. l,0O,OO0/ towards loss ,tf amenities instead of Rs.50,OO0/-; rrnd Rs.SO,OO0/- towards pain and sullering instead of Rs.2O,OO0/ and ultimately prayed.to enhalce the compensation. \ (- 3

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited would contend that the Tribunal erred in granting interest at 9%o per arnum on the compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribuna-l is contrary to terms and conditions of the policy and oral evidence of R.W.1. There is failure on the part of the Tribunal in not holding that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid driving licence when the charge sheet was filed by the police under Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it is contended that the amount awarded tog,ards future prospects, loss of earnings, loss of amenities and pain ald suffering are exorbitant. Further, it is contended that except issuing disability certifrcate, P.W.2 did not treat the injured-claimant. It is also contended that the claimant rvas admitted at trSI Hospital and was treated conservativeiy, with no follow-up treatment and therefore, the compensation awarded is excessive and ultimately prayed to reduce the compensation.

7. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for determination in both these appeals is whether the compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is liable to be reduced/enhanced? / / 4

8. A perus,al of the record shou,s that the c1 rimant suffered dislocation of right shoulder and fracture of both bones of left 1eg Both the injur:ies are grievous in nature. Therefc re, anvarding of Rs.50,OOO/ tou,ards pain and suffering i.e., Rs.25,000/ per each grievous injurg is proper. The fracture of both bor-res of left leg is Iikely to heal arid the claimant may not suffer lor;s of amenities. Likewise, dislocation of right shoulder can also be rectified. As per Ex.A6-disabilit.v certihcate, physical disability is r;hown to be at 25"1'. As per F IR marked under Ex.A 1 , the claimrmt is a u.elder, which requires heaw dependency r,rpon hancls to do the welding work. The possibility of the claimant being able to rlo vvelding work with the same abilitv before the sub-ject accident, does not seem to be probable. One thing that is certain is tha. the in3ury of dislocation to the left shoulder u,ould certainly affec t the functional capabilitv of the claimant. Further, as per the evi,lence of p.W.2, who treated the claimalt, there is a stiffness o1 left knee and inability to lift weights with right arm and'"nalk with the support of hand stick. Tl-rerefore, the disability with respect to right arm ald left leg are botl-r factors, lr,hich will affect the earnin5; capacity of the claimarq!. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and pr(,per to take the functional diszrbilitv suffered by the claimalt as t Oah, instead of 257o assessed by the Tribunal. ffi",..:ry 5 9 . The Tribunal has rightly taken the notional income of claimant at Rs.7,OOO/ per month as he was worker with welding skill. As on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged 33 years. To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, as per age and incom-e of deceased, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and othersl, the alnual income would be Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.7000/- x 72 + 33,600/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier of '16', the loss of future earnings of the claimant due to disability at 4O%o is Rs.7,52,640/ (Rs. 1,17,6OO x 16 x 40l 1OO)

10. Coming to the loss of income, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.30,OOO/- which is on lower side. However, claimant is awarded Rs.70,00O/- for a period of ten months that might have taken for healing and resuming the welding work. 1 1. Further, the claimant is also entitled for Rs. 1,000/- for transportation, Rs.8,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs. 1,000/- for damages of clothes, Rs.13,2OO/- for medical, nursing, etc, 'zorz (o) rzo (sc) lzoos) o s.c.c. rzr 6 |- Rs.35,OOO/- frtr future medical expenses and Rs.50,0OO/- for loss of amenities and social status as as,arded by the l'ribunal. In all, the claimant is er-rtitled for Rs.9,B0,B4O / 1,2. The occtrrrcnce of accident is not in dispute. Tl-r e challer-rge is mounted on the ground that the insurance company has no liability to pay compensation on account of driving Icence violation. The Tribunal observed that though the insurance c()mpar-ry pleaded driving licence' violation, no material is placed on record to prove the same exccpt for relying on Ex.A2-charge sheet wherein insurance compan.\r is charged under Section 1Bl o'Motor Vehicles Act. The policc during the investigation have perused the documents of the crime vehicle and found them to be in order except for the driving licence of the accused. In that regard, except the oral eviderrce ol the Legal Manager of the Insurance Company, there is no positive evidence to prove driving licenc,r violation. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Companl, is that non-production of licence before the potice during investigation need not necessarily be on account of non-possession of driving licence. In the face of rival contentions, since there is no positive evidence to prove driving Iicence violation, no interference is required with thc au,ard passed by the Tribunai. u.ith regard to 7 the liability of the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.53O of 2Ol9 filed by the claimant is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,94 .2OOl- to Rs.9,80,840/ , which shall carry interest at the rate of 7 .Suh per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued thereon without furnishing any security. Consequently, M.A.C.M.A.No.576 of 2019 liled by the Insurance Company is dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if aly, pending in these appeals, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. /TTRUE COPY" 38,1'#'#'d,L'+*Ih / SEGTION OFFTCER To,

1. The MACT cum Xl Additional Chief Judge' City Civil Courts' Hyderabad' 2. One CC to Sri K'Harimonan Reddy' Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V Sambasiva Rao' Advocate [OPUCI

4. Svs/gh Two CD CoPies (* HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 :\ t: P, S ?[6 1 (i ,' i,:'ii COMMON JUDGMENT + COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.S30 ot 2019 & 576 OF 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.Ti3O OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.576 OF 2019 (r L\ B. 1 { 6 't i 43442) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA - MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 530 OF 2019 AND 576 0F 2019 MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 530 OF 2019 : Between : ' G.Sanyasi Rao, S/o-Late Satyam Aged 30 years Occ. Fabricator Cum Welder, Presently nil, Rio H-No. 12-4-1311611 . Road no.10, Prashanthi Nagar, Moosapet, Hyderabad. AND 1 Galigalla Mahesh, S/o G.Kurmaiah Aged tt/ajor Occ- Business R/o H-No. 5-8- 69/190, lndiranagar, IDPL Gate, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. 500072. 2 National lnsurance Co.Ltd, Rep. by its Regional Manager 5-8-568, '1st floor, Jubilee Building, Nampally station road, Hyderabad 500001 ....Appellant ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in O.P.No.1516 of 2014, dated 06-12-2018 on the file of the MACT cum Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. lA NO: 1 OF 20'19 : Petition under Order Vl Rule 17 R/w Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to enhance the claim amount from Rs.9,95,000i- to Rs. 20,00,000i- by way of amendments in OP no.'1516 ol 2014 on the file of the MACT cum Xl Additional Chief judge, City civil Court, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellant : Sri V.Sambasiva Rao Counsel for the Respondents : Sri K.Harimohan Reddy MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APP EAL NO: 576 OF 2019 : Between : National lnsurance CO.Ltd, Rep by its Regional Manage r, 5_8_56g, 1st Floor, Jubilee Building, Abids, Nampally Siation Ro"ad, HyderabSo_SOOoOt. App,ellanUResp-2 in O.p. AND 1 z

9.9*y"l Rao., S/o.Late Satyam, 34 years, Fabricator-rtuelder, H.No. 12_4_ 1311611 , Road NO.10, Prashinthinagar, tvtobsipet, HyO,_.raOaU. :. - 9aligalla Mahgs!, S/o. G.Kurmaiah, Major, Business, H.NO. 5_8_69/190, hdiranagar, I DPL Gate, Kukatpaily, Hydeiabad_S0O b7;r lOwnerof Vtoior Cycle NO AP28DJ6798) ...Rr:spondenUpetitioner ...RespondenURespondent - 1 in Op . Appeal file4 Under $egtion 173 of Motor vehicres Act irgainst the Judqment a_nd decree in o.p.No. r516 of 2014, dated 06-12-201-8 ; ini, iil" biinu-rrandi'!L. Xl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. These appeals coming on for hearing and upon penrsing the grounds of appeals, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and ihe nat6rial pa"pers in the case. and upon hearing the arguments of sri V.sambasiva l?ao, counsel for the appellants in MACMA No.530/20 r9 and Respondent No.1 in in MACMA No. 57612019 and of sri K.Harimohan Reddy counser for the appeilants in MACMA No. 57612019 and for the Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.530/201(l This Court doth Order and Decree as follows : 1 . That the Motor Accident civil f\riscellaneous Appeal No 530 of 2019 fired by the claimants be and hereby is parfly Allowed and the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneor.rs Appear No.576 of 20'rg fired by the insurarce company be and here by is dismissed;

2. That by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunar from Rs.4,94,2001 to Rs.9,80,840r, which shail carry interesl at the rate ot 7.5v. per annum from the date of petition till realisation;

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shaU be deposited by the respondents within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment;

4. That On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount along with interest accrued thereon without furnishing any security;

5. That there shall be no orderasto costs; //TRUE COPY// i SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL EPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The MACT cum Xl Additional Chief Judge, City 2. Two CD Copies ivil Courts, Hyderabad To, HIGH COURT DATED:0710312025 COMMON DECREE MACMA.No.S30 of 2019 & 576 OF 2019 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA NO.53O OF 2019 AND DISMISSING THE MACMA NO.576 OF 2019 l-(, 2-3t s L)