I ion'ble Supreme Court in No.tional lz.sur(Ince Compot vs Mannat Johal and. ochersr and in several subsequerr

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR RI MACMA No.762 of 20L9 ,DY ' JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant, u.l Ler Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by ttre ,r vard dated 28-01-2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidl ts Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Cir r Court at Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal,,) in M.V.O.p.No 3r t of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2.2l OOO/-with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 6Zo per ann I n from the date of petition till realization.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.0l.2Ol( when the appellant, along with his wife and daughter, was trav,l ing in the auto bearing registratron No.Ap-O I W-3g67 from Gang 1 towards the Sammakka Saralamnia Jathara aL Ma I about 4;30 a.rn. after crossing Rasoolpalli and rea,:lL culvert at Indaram Cross Road, the driver of thc atrtr vehiclc in a rash and negligent manner and dashed 1: :1li Viltage l'rerial, at rg near a drove the a bullock cart going ahead of the auto, as a result of whjch r.lt appellant suffered grievous injuries, such as below left knce inl r y, loss of the first four toes of his teft foot (except the little toe). l that the appellant was hospitalized, un<lenvent srr incurred medical expenditure. The appellant filed th€ is srated 3ery and aforesaid n t-r 2 O P. against respondent Nos l and 2 i e , the owner of the auto and the insurance company respcctively, claiming compensation of Rs-10,00,00O/ for the injuries sustained by him

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No'1 ie, the owner of the auto remained ex parte and rcspondent No'2 i e , the Tnsllrance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss thc claim Petition'

4. The Tribunal, after conducting futl fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence' held that the appellant suffered injuries in thc accident occurred due to negligent driving ol the respondent No 1's vehicle, and that respondent No.2 is the insurer under a valid policy covering third-party risk and awarded compensation of Rs 2,25'000/- as against the claim of Rs 1O,0O,O0O/ Dissatrshed with the quantum of compensation awarded by thc Tribunal, the appe tlant-clajmant hled the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record

6. Mr claimant E. Kishore Kumar, Iearned counsel for the appellant- vehemently contendcd that Tribunal erred in 3 income of undervaluing the income of the appelant and thereb., crrasticalll, reducing the compensation; even though the actua Rs.5,000/- per month was proved b-y the certificate of rr the Tribunal has not accepted the same: and while compensation, due regard must be given to the full 1r :-accident earnings, future prospects, multiplier applicable to his : 1e, arrd all conventional heads oi compensation, and as Lrch the compensation awarded the f1i[p12] requires enhancenr, :rt bv this Court. alculating plo_vrnent,

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel apg ::rring for rcspondent No.2-Insurance Company, submits that rt ( .l.ribunal has rightly exercised its discretion to reduce the inco appellant, on the ground of lack of corroborative evidenc: the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,21 just and equitablc. re of the and that OOO/- is

8. A careful perusal of the record reveals that tlLr dispute that the accident occurrcd due to rash and clriving of the auto belonging to respondent No. 1 and the i policy of respondent No.2 was in force at the time of acciclr also not in dispute that the appellant has suffered grievorr and has been certified to have permanent disability relarr of toes of the left foot, which affects his earning capacity. -e ts no -tegligent isufa nce rt. It is injuries I to loss ---: \ - 4 g. Coming to the question of monthlv income, the appcllant produced an employrnent certificate (Ex-A7) shorving that he was ,,vorking as Watchman at a monlhly Pay ot Rs.S,OOO/ Although the author of the certificate was not examined, in view of the certificate and his occupation, thrs Court is of the view that the income of the appellant should be taken at Rs.5,000/ per month as claimed, instead of Rs.3,000/ - If the same is taken into consideration, the annual income comes to Rs 60,000/- ll the multiplier of '15' is applied lor age 40 years, it comes to Rs.9,00,000/- (Rs.6O,000 x 15). As thc Tribunal held that the petitioner suffered disability to an extcnt of 2O'%, tbe loss of earnings due to disability comes to Rs.1,80,000/- The amount granted by thc Tribunal Lowards grievous injuries needs to be enhanced from Rs.1O,OO0/- to Rs.50,000/- each; the amount towards transportation charges and exLra nourishment from Rs.7,000/- to Rs.2O,00O/-; an amount o1 Rs 50,000/- necds to be granted towards medical cxpenscs, and Lhe amount of Rs.1,0O,O0O/- granted by the Tribunat Lowards pain and suffering can be maintained Thus, rhe compensation payable to the appellant-claimant is Rs.4,50,OOO/ (Rs.1 ,80,000 + Rs 1,00,OO0 + Rs.20,ooo + Rs.50,000 + Rs.1,OO,O00). 5

10. Insofar as the interest component is concerrt [, as the I ion'ble Supreme Court in No.tional lz.sur(Ince Compot t, Ltd. Vs. Mannat Johal and. ochersr and in several subsequerr d ecr sio ns held that the reasonable rate of interest to be awardr:, in motor accident claim cases shall be 7.soh per annum, this Co-r t 1s of the opinion that the rate of interest awarded by the Tribu al, rn the instant case, is on the lower side and requires modihcati n.

11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and he au,ard clated 28 01 2019 rn M.V.O.P.No.341 of 2013 pas ;, I by the Tribunal is modihed by enhancing the compensa ion from Rs.2,25,000/ to Rs.4,50,O00/- with interest at 7.Son 1 -'r annum from thc date of petition till the date of realization. Tlt(, est of the tcrms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal s1i. ll rcmain LLnaltered. No order as to costs. As a sequel. thc miscellancous petitions pendi; q, if any, shall stand closcd. A'rA 2 o\q gL 2o //TRUE COPY// t Sd/- A,V.S,PRASAD REGISTRAR =PUTY ?-.,,. SECTION OFFICER To

1. The t\.4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-xxv Addl. i rief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.(with records if any)

2. One CC to SRl. E Kishore Kumar, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl.K.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies JA/PR t: t.. &G{. & HIGH COURT DAIED'1111112025 JUDG[/ENT It/ACIvlA.No.762 of 20'19 r,1 i) l,tt .J iO * 11 . :.--- ' M.A.C,NI,A, IS PARTLY ALLOWED V .F IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF NOVEI\,,IBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. BHASKAR REDDY I/OTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MSCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 762 OF 2019 Between: Sundilla Lingaiah, S/o. Banaiah, Aged about 52 years, Occ. Watchman, R/o. H.No.3-58, Gangipalle Village, Jaipur Mandal, Adilabad District of TS. ...AppellanUPetitioner AND

1. Krishnaandu Kabiraj, S/o. Shamlal Kabiraj, Aged about lvlajor, Occupation. Owner of Auto, bering No.AP-01-W-3867, RJo. 230.No.1, ESGAM, Kghazngar, Adilabad.

2. United lndia Assurance Company Ltd., Rep.by its Senior Divisional [\4anager, TP Cell, D.No.4, P8144, 2nd floor, Posnett Bhavan, Church Building, Tilak Road, Hyderabad. ... Respondents/Respondent Appeal u/sec. 173 of motor vehicles act against the order and decree made in lvlVOP No.341 of 2013 daled 2810112O19 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-xxv Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri E.Kishore Kumar, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri K.Rajendra Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is partly Allowed and the dated 2810112019 in I/.V.O.P-No.341 of 2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,25,0001 to Rs.4,50,000/- with interest al7.SYo per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

2. That the rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered;

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY// Sd/- A,V.S PRASAD IEPUTYREGISTRAR v- SECTION OFFICER To, JA/PR

1. The Ir.4otor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-xxv Ac ll Civil Courts at Hyderabad.(with records if any)

2. Two CD Copies Chief Judge, City HIGH COURT DATED:1711112025 DECREE MAClvlA.No.762 of 2019 M.A-C,M-A. IS PARTLY ALLOWED \ .II,