High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 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.6,00,000/- to Rs.18,00,000/- by way of amendments in O.P.No.2978 of 2014 on the file of the MACT Cum lX Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Appellants : SRl. K. HARIMOHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : SRl. B. SURESH KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.529 of 2OL9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Suresh Kumar Bolla, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2/Insuralce Company and perused the record

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/ claimant aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-lx Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2978 of 2014, dated 11.12.2018.

3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant on account of injuries sustained by him in road traific accident, which took place on 14.10.2014 at 5 pm, when the appellant along rvith his wife and son were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-2S-BN 576 i from Care Hospital towards their house. When the motorcycle reached IDL water tank, the rider of Scooty bearing No.TS-10 EA 4295 corning from the wrong side in high speed dashed the motorcycle resulting in fracture of left tibia condyle, fracture of left knee and head injury to the appellant. Upon examining the \ I I I I I I I I ) i t 2 , evidence adduced by the appellant, the Tribunal awa_rded Rs.4,35,OOO/- as compensation.

4. The appeilant challenged the award on the ground that his monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal considered only Rs. 10,000/ per month. Further, no compensation was awarded towards disability, future prospects and attendant charges.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/lnsurance company argued that the Tribunal awarded reasonable amount.

6. A perusal of the record shows that as per Ex.A3/Medical Legal case patient record, the appellant sustained only one grievous injury and according to Ex.A7/ Disability certihcate, there is 25% of partial permalent disabitity on account of difficulty in sitting and squatting. The physical disability is 25o/o which is partial permanent disability in nature according to pW2 doctor. The functional disability has to be determined on the basis of the nature of avocation of the appellant. According to the appellant, he is working as an Ofhce Assistant in Mylan Lab. The work of an Office Assistant requires continuous walking to do his work. Therefore, the functional disability also has to be taken at 25o/o. There is no evidence adduced to prove the income of the appellant. ! I l I I I 1 l l 3 Therefore, the national income as a Lab Assistant is taken at Rs.10,00O/- per month, which is reasonable. The age of the appellart was 3O years as on the date of accident 7 . To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, as per age and income of deceased, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects as per lau, laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and othersr, the annual income would be Rs.1,6B,0OO/- (Rs.10,0OO /- x 12 + 48,OOO| ). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevart multiplier of '17', the loss of future earnings of the appellant due to disabili$, at 25%o is Rs.7,14,0OO/- (Rs. 1,68,000/- x 17 x 25 / 1OO) instead of Rs.2,0O,O00/- awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The appellant was treated under Aarograsri. Therefore, removal of implants also can be done under Aaroguasri and hence, the Tribunal did not consider payment of compensation tor.r,ards future surgery.

9. The Tribunal has granted an amotrnt of Rs.60,0OO/- for loss of earnings, Rs.7,000/- for transport, Rs.3,000/- for extra nourishment, Rs.1,O0,OOO/- for damages to clothing and articles, 'zo1z 1e1 rzo 1sc1 lzof) osc.c.rzr 4 etc., Rs.25,OO0/- towards medical expenses and Rs'4O,OOO/- for painandsufferingandthiscourtisrrotincllnedtointerferewith the said findings

10. In the light of the above discussion, the -appellant is entitled for the following compensation under different heads: Head Compensation awarded (1) Loss of future earnings due to Rs.7,14,000/- disabilitY (21 Loss of earnings (3) Transport Irs.6O,OO0/ Rs.7,OOO/- (41 Extra nourishment and medicine (5) Damages to clothing and articles, etc' Rs'1,O0,000/- Rs.3,OOO/- (6) Medical exPenses (71 Pain and suffering Rs.25,OO0/ Rs.aO,O00/- Total compensation awarded Rs.9,49,OOO/-

11. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded interest @ 9o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others3, irlgLged to decrease the rate of interest awarded by the learned 'zor3 ao t4o3 = 2013 (4)ALT 35 I : 5 Tribunal to 7.Sah per annum on entire compensation amount from the date of petition tiil the date of realization.

12. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,35,000/- to Rs.9,49,000/- as hereunder (a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7 .5o/o p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. (b) The appellant shall pay the court fee on the enhatnced anount of compensation (c) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs !i //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. KAVITHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR hn-- SECTIbN oFFICER

1. One CC to SRl. K. HARIMOHAN REDDY, Advocate. [OPUC] 2. One CC to SRl. B. SURESH KUMAR, Advocate. [OPUC] 3. , Two CD CoPies. To, NS 'r:1 .,. ..'.., f" 'irl . DATED i 1310312025 , " ' +AI'j'r 'r :-r'i.;'t' .rr:i ',.B{hl ' 'iffir:rl' .r.".-[-tdl': r:.l..i:: - . ,:.- : ORDER o 1 r''- ( * -\- . ..-.\ J 0 sEP 2U5 I'ATC eGo o ,1 .:',.i : *r, r '-.'rX: I I ! i I i i I I I I I I I I I I I i i l I PARTLY ALLOWING OF THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS: -..: .: i ..{::;:1.:'. rr. i. .,.{ii$ii, i':, ,.:,, :l:Sl1*.fi:9tft,'*,, ' i'1.-.'i4. : &rrjr/i: . ,, i,',:,: .a lt, i. . - .,.{ }-, 'i'i :5P,-4:jlrv ';,..,:.r.:..' -': t:r:: -, i:a:,..: !a;{* ',; :,j,. . *tr.:.{ i,:tsi' :+i'\", i :'::+.r+i _:.' ' .r;:;'l ']i: \ra::.... ./2 2 ./U4/ . , .;;*ia.,l , -:.,1|:lt-t'