T.. 9risailam v. came in cppor;ite direction arld lost control over the I

Hea; d Siri C. Mohan Prakash, learned counsl)1 for the 6. appellant/cla rnant and Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, StzLnding ('ounsel for the Respo ndt:Irt No. 2 / Insurance Company, ar-rd p':rused the material a /ailable on record including the grouncls oI Apoeal'

7. Befcre 11,trng into the merits of the case, it is pertlnent to note that thoug;h tl.e claim is for Rs.6,OO,OO0/-, during the pcndency of this Appcal. rhe petitioner has filed t.A.No' 1 of 20')'7 seeking amendmc rt rl claim from Rs.6,00,000/ - to Rs 1 0,OO 00O/ - and accordingly le said interlocutory application u'as 'tllou'ed on

26.O9.2023.

8. The firL<ling of the Tribunai with regard to th': manner in u,hich the ac:ident took place has become hnal as the r;ame is not challengerl eitT er by the owner or insurer of the vehiclt ' g . Thc sh,trt question tha[ arise s for considera t' on in this appeal is "rtltether the compensation anuarded bg the Tibunal is just and e qurtable"?

10. 'I'hc learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that tho :lajrnant was working as Village $evenue tl)lficer (VRO) and earning F:s.12,O00/- per month and on accounL of accident he ,did not altencl his office which is evident from oral evidt,nce of PWl 4 MGP, J Macma-428 2O2O and documentary evidence under Ex. A-6 loss of pay certificate. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in taking the income of the deceased as Rs.S,OOO/ pe r month. It is further contended that the claimant/ injured has sustained multiple fractures to his right leg apart from other grievous injuries and that he underwent major surgeries and suffered 30% disability as per the evidence of p.W.2, the treating doctor, who also deposed that the claimant has suffered 30% disability vl,hich is partial and permanent in nature and issued the Disability Certihcate as per Ex. A-8 and the learned Tribunal cught to havr: granted just compensation separately for functional disability and for permancnt disability. It is also contended that the learned Tribur-ral erroneously exonerated the respondent No. 2 - Insurar-rce company on the sole ground that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid and subsisting driving licence as on the date of accident, which is contrary to the decision laid down by Honourablc Supreme Court in Francisca Luiza Rocha and. others o. I{. Valarmathi and others. r It is further contended that the learned Tribunal erred in not awarding any future prospects and even the amounts granted under the heads of pain & suffering; loss of earnings; transportation, r 2018 ACJ r430 /. 5 MGP, J :1,1 :1]]a 128-2o2D attendanl- charges and extra nourishment are meager ald prayed for enhanc,-'mr:nt. 1 1 . C)n t he other hand, the learned Standing Ccutr:'el for the Insurance Corr.pany has contended that considering the nature of injuries atLd l:ngth of treatment, the Tribunal has rLdequately aq,arded tl re (r()mpensation and therefore, prayecl frlr dismissal of the Appe:rl

12. It is p:rtinent to note that the appellant,i cl:rimant has calegorically s;tated in his evidence that he was u'orkir-rg as Village Revenue Cfficcr in Surepally Viltage of Bhongir Mand:rl Nalgonda District. H ow:ver, the petitioner has not filed an1' clocumentary evidence t,r pr,rve that he was working as Village Rcr'':tiuc Ofhcer ancl earnir g It,;. 12,0OO/ per month. The learncd i-ribtrnal drawn a conclus,or-r that in absence of any documcnlaty pl'ool either salary c,:rtilicrltc or pay slips to establish t}-re incorne of the petitioner, firt:rl his income as Rs.5,OOO/ per month.

13. Alth rugh, the appellant/ claimant has not hled any documenti in' proofs to establish his income, he filed L oss of Pay certificate uncler Ex.A-6. A perusal of Ex.A6 disclos',r that the Tahsildar, Bhongir Mandal has certified that from lrl,.t)8.2o12 to

23.06.201) tre petitioner, who was working as Village Revenue \ ,"^ 6 MGP, J l[./.acrlra 428 2O2O Ofhcer of Surepally village, availed medical leave. Thus, Ex.A6 discloses that the appellant/ petitioner was working as Village Revenue Officer during the relevant point of time. This court after considering the year of the accident and jn absence of any salary or pay slip of the deceased and also by considering the statutory deductions from the gross salary of the petitioner/claimant, is inclined to consider the monthly income of the deceased as Rs. 1O,0O0/-, which is appearing to be just and reasonable. Thus, in view of the above discussiorr this court is of the opinion that the appellant/ claimant monthly incomc can be taken as Rs.12,0OO/- per month.

74. Now, coming to the disabilitv aspect, the learned Tribunal after considering the oral evidence of PW 2 Doctor, who treated the appellant and in view of Ex.A-8 Disability Certificate, has assessed the disability as 307., partial and permanent disability. The learned TribunaI has rightly considered the above document while computing the compensation which seems to be just and reasonable, as such; there is no need to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal, so far as the percentage of disabilit5r is concerned.

15. Another contention of learned counsel for appellant/claimant is that the disability in the case on hand has to (, 7 MGP, J Itr cnla 428 2020 be considt reci on separate footing on the basis of functional disabiliq. and for permanent disability, therefort, partial permanerlt disability should be 3O%o as assesscd b1' )W-2 and functional lisability as 1O07o and in support of his con,ention he relied upor thrr decision of Honourable Apex Court iu Sved Sadiq v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited2 tr-rc Rekha Jain v. National f nsurance Company Lirnited3

16. A pcr usrrl of Ex. A-8 disability certifrcate and evrderrce of PW 2 categori :alll establishes that the disabilitv is pr rtia I and pcrmancnt in rLature and not for whole body. It is settler I principle that if clisribili-5, i" O..rr^nent in nature then the losr; is to be assessed r,n the basis of functional disabilill, resulting from medical disabil t1 and in case of temporary disability thc injurcd is to bc conrl er-rsrrted for the loss of income for thc penoci he could not work c n ir{rcount of such disability. As evident fr,.tr n Ex. A 8 disabilitl, csrtrf.cate, column no.7 clearly states th.rt d,sability is not functic nal in nature. It is relevant to place relian,:c on the decrsion ,rf l{o,rorable Apex Court in the New India Assurance ,2014 (2) SCC 7 r5 3 2013 Ac].r 215t ) 8 MGP, J Mac,lj,a 428 2O2O Company Limited V. Satish Chandra Sharma & Another,a wherein the Honourable Supreme Court reduced the compensation awarded by the High Court to a govcrnment servant considering that there was no permanent disability and that the claimant wasn't immobilized and continued to work cven after the accident and that the claimant continued to earn the monthly salary he was earlier drawing, including incremen ts, cxcept some allowances given due to nature of posting.

17. Further in case of T.J Parmeshwarappa and others v. The Branch manager, New India Assuranee Company Limited and otherss at Paragraph Nos. 8 and g the Honourable Court has elaborately discussed as to the yardsticks that needs to be considered while.assessing award separately under functional and permanent disability, the relevant paragraphs are reproduced herein: "8. The percentoge of penrutnent disabilitlt is expressed bA the Doctors with reference to the uhole body, or more ofien than not, uith reference to a particular limb- When a dkabilitg certiftcate states that the injured ho,s suffered pennarrcnt disabilitg to an extent of 45% of the left lotuer limb, it is not the same as 45%o permctnent disability uith rekrence to the uthole bodg. The extent of disabititg of a limb (or part of the body) expressed in tenns of a percentage of the total functions of tLutt limb, obutouslg cannot be assumed to be the ertent of disabilitg of the tuhole bodg. If there is 6o0/o pennanent disabilitg of the a Supreme Couft Civil Appeal No_ 1579 of 2022 vtde order dated 23.2_,2022 s Suprcme Court Appeal (Civil), 859a 8599 of 2022, Judgmcnt Dated: Nov 18, 2022 .:'--. . ',4 ,/ '., .r 9 MGP, J I'ttacma 128 2O2O riglt iar cl and 80% permanent disabititg of left leg' il CLes nZt , 'r.o, that the extent of permanent disabilitg rttith reft:r,tt<:t: to the uhole bodg is 14O%o (that is 8O9b plus 60%)' If Cifer,z tt parts of thi Oodg haue -suffered differ':nt i.r:rritoq., irl airoiititi"t, tLrc ium total thereoJ' e xpres:';ed 'in te tn-s- of the permanent dbabilitg uith referen ce to 'he wlnlz botlg. cainot obuiouslg exceed looo/o'"

18. In v ew of the above discussion and also consi'lering the principle LLid down in the above said decisrons and as the appellan'. i-ail:C to establish that he cannot do any wr;rk of any nature i. futltrc due to the injuries sustained br' hmt and aiso taking irtt I cc nsicleration the percentage of thc disab lity of the appliczrnt ass;cssed by PW-2 QD 3O%, the contention of learned counsel fi rr :he applicant that learned Tribunal ougl-tt to have assessed 'he percentage of functional disability of the z''ppellant @ 10O% is u nsrtr;tainable lg.No\..cr)mingtothequantumofcompense ion'sincethis court has frxe d tl-re monthly salary of the applicant @. fls.10,oo0/-, the quanlulr of compensation of Rs'2,52,00O/- as au'ar-ded by the learned T,il;rrrzrl is required to be modifted. The annua.l income of the petit,t,ne - ri'ould arrive at Rs.1,2O,00O/ -' 2C . Thc ug'r the claimant has ciaimed for fulure pro spects' lt ls to be seetr llrrtt the claimant, who was examined as P\1,' 1, admitted in his cr oss; examination that even after the accidi:nt he was './ 10 MGP, J Macma..428-2O2O drawing salary of Rs. 12,O00/- per month by working in the same post as Village Revenue Ofhcer of Surepally village. This admission on the part of PW1 makes it clear that there is no change of office or reduction in the earning capacity of the petitioner/ claimant. Furthermore, as per the cross examination of PW2, who has provided the treatment to the petitioner/ PW 1 , the only difficulty faced by the petitioner due to the injuries is that he could not sit, squat or walk properly. It is to be observed that the courts cannot award compcnsation for future prospects unless there is reduction in the injured person's future ezrrning capacity due to the disabiliff. The concept of 'future prospects'is tied to the potential loss of earning capacity resulting from the injury or disability. If the injuries sustained by the injured do not impair the petitioner's abiliry to earn in the future, or if his earning capacity remains unchanged despite the disability, the Court is unlikely to consider future prospects for compensation. The percentage of permanent disability does not directly equate to the percentage of loss of earning capacity and in fact, a thorough evaluation as to how the disability affects the individual's ability to earn is required. In the instant case, as stated supra, the earning capacity of the petitioner has not diminished. In such circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled lbr any futlrre prospects. I I ' t I I MGP, J l,-.:rcrna 428 2020 21,. As lisr: -rsscd supra, the annual salary of the petitioner would arrive at Rs.1,2O,OOO/- (Rs.1O,O0O/- x 72 nronths)' The disabilit,' ts rrssessed by PW2 and as fixed by the Tribu -ral is 30%- There is r o t| spute with regard to the age of the appl''car.L as 42 years. The|t: is also no dispute with regard lo tlre relevant multiplit:r as '14'. Thus, the quantum of compenszrtirrn towards disabilit'r, s Flr;.5,04,000/- (Rs l,2O,Ooo I x 14 x 3o7.). Hence, the petitiont:r is r:ntil-led for Rs.5,04,OOO/- as compenszrtton for the disabilitv.

22. The lea rncd Tribunal failed to award an-v amollnt towards attendant cl- zrrge s. As per Ex.A6, the claimant availed medical leave fr<rnr l2.OA.2Ol2 to 23.06.2013 and during the r;aid period, the clairn rnt might have required the support of an a ttendant to discharge hisr day to day activities. Thus, an amount of Rs 5,000/- '" ,*'.1d,:ci torvards attendant charges. Thc learnt d Tribunal awardecl ls.1,0O0/ towards transportation charges, 'sl-rich is on lesser sic e. Hence, this Court is inclined to au'ard Rs 3,OO0/- towards t 'ansportation charges.

23. Ap: rt from that the above, learned Tribunal hrls awarded Rs. 1,78,O JO7' tou,ards medical expenses and extra nourishment, Rs.15,OO()/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.58,00(.t/- towards 12 MGP. J Macma 428 2020 expenses for removal of implants. In this regard, this Court is of the view that there is no need to interfere on the said aspects.

24. Thus, in ail, the claimant is entitled for the compensation under different heads as under: Sl.No. Name of the head 1 2 3 4 5 Pain and sufferance Transportation and attendant charges (Rs.3,00O/ - + Rs.5,00O/-) Medical and extra nourishment expenses Expenses for removal of implants Permanent disability Compensation entitled by the claimant 1s,o00/- 8,o00/- t,7a,ooo /- s8,o00/, 5,04,000/- Total 7,63,OOOl-

25. Now coming to hxing the liability on the respondents, the learned Tribunal while considering oral evidence of RWs I and 2 and documentary evidence under Exs.Bl to 84 and Exs.Xl and X2, exonerated the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company from its iiability to pay compensation on the ground that the driJer of the crime vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and observed that respondnt No. 1 owner of the crime vehcile alone is liable to statisfy the award. The learned counsel for a'"" l3 MGP, J M.cna 4282O2O the Appellr nt - Petitioner while relying upon decisions irr National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others6' In the decisrcn irl Franctsca Luiza Rocha (Supra), the Honourable Supreme ( our, at paragraph Nos' 7 and 8 held as under " In the present co-se the ouner of the uehicle ditl not corlte st the proleedings to proue an-d- establish thot in spite of best effoli the fact thot the diuer did not houe a ualid diuitrg' |i:ence utos not knoun to him What alone :;tood pror,,"d 1bg the Insurer) uas that the diuer of the uehicl'z did -no1 l.ou,<t-a uatid diuing licence on the date of the aco Cent' As t rc Tiuer hctd. a licence but uatiditg of the same had ex;tit ed, 't,e are of the uieul that tlqe conclusion of the High Co,Lr L that the said. fact, bg itsetf, constitutes a fuldam ental bren:h. LtJ'tlLe terms and condittons of the policg of insu'ance is tlot carect.

8. On the basi.s of the aforesaid ftnding' ute uill ho'ue to hctri th.at the ir-surance companA (M/ s. united India Insu'anc,: Co. Ltd.) i.e. Respondent No.2 herein utoutd be liabL,z to liatisfA the au.ryrd and thereafier seek recouery' if so adui.;ed from the ouner of the uehicle (Mrs. K Valamtathi) i.e. r zspcndent No. 1." In vieu of the principle laid down in the abovr: Cecision of 26 Honourab e Slupreme Court and also considering the above violations of the terms and conditions of Ex.B 1 insurance policy, this court is of the considered opinion that the learnerd Tribunal intead of exlnerating the respondent No'2-Insurancer Company completell' frcm the liability ought to have applied the doctrine of 'pay arld rlcovcry'to meet the ends ofjustice. / / 6 {2004) 3 Supr eme C ourt Cases 297 ,' 14 MCP, J Macma-42E 2O2O

27. In view of the above discussion, this Court feels it just and proper to modify the award a,,d decree passed by the learned Tribunal to the extent of above observations.

28. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,O4 ,OOO/_ to Rs.7,63,O0O/- which shall carry interest at 7.5o/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by the respondent No.2_ Insurance Company. The respondent No.2 _ Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take steps for recovering the same from the respondent No. 1 - owner of the crime vehicle. On such deposit, the appellant_ petitioner is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. However, the appellant-petitioner shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// Sd/. V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To ECTION OFFICER

1. The Chairman, llotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional Chief _ Judge,_(Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. (With Records) 2. One CC to SRl. C MOHAN PRAKASH, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. AVKS PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies PR H- I I I I i HIGH COLIR]' DATED:1010112025 JUDGMET\lT MACMA.N o.428 of 2020 . ilE sIA 14: (}F J :) J 02 IFfl 2m (. t) | <- ',., 7 PARTLY T.LLOWING THE APPEAL WITHOUT'COSTS f-,r'$(4 - \(*- G\{f l l IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 32531 FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEO US APPEAL NO:428 OF 2020 Between: T.. Srisailam, S/o. T. Rama Narsaiah, aged. 42 years, Occ. VRO, R/o. 1g_6_ 148iA, Near Railway Station, Uppuguda, tiyderabad. AND ...APPELLANTS

1. I.[grel S/o. T. Sathaiah, aged. Major, Occupation: Business, 29-754187 5, Vinayak Nagar, Neledmet,'Matkajgiri, Secunderabad.' 2. The Oriental lnsurance Company Limited, Represented bv Divisional Manager, Snehalatha 'Building, (Tp' Ctaims Hub) P.B No.45. Greeritands noao. eegumpei, Hii"ijouol' R/o. H.No its Senior 6-3-871, ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree, in M.V. o.p. No.431 of 2013 dated. 13t04t2016 on the file 6f the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-XlV Additional chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad. This appea appeal, the Judgm the MVOP and u Advocate for the Respondent no.2 I coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of ent and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in pon hearing the arguments of SRl. C MOHAN PRAKASH, appellant and of SRI AVKS PRASAD, Advocate for the This Court doth Order and Decree as follows 1 . That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,04,000/- to Rs.7,63,000/- (Rupees Seven iakhs sixty three thousand only) which shall carry interest ai 7.so/o per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization payable by respondent No.2. lnsurance Company; 2. That the respondent No.2- lnsurance company be and hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of two monthi from the date iea'=,qF--':--.J,, ,/ 1- of receipt tf a .opy this judgment and then take steps to. rec.vering the same _ 19, the ft )spo tdent No. 1 _-Owner of tf," 3. That.on such deposit, the_appe,antpeliti;;"-r';;'and hereby is enti,ed to _ wjthdraw t te same without fumishi"g j"y ,""rrity;- 4 That the a ppeilant-petitioner ue ani neieoy .nrir'prv the deficit court fee on 5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. the enhan, ;ed c:ompensation; *ii"f "riru "; //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To r) SEC ION OFFICER 1 The chairrran, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-XIV Additionar chief (Fa ;t Track Court), City Civir Court;, ;;;;;;rd 2 {udgg, lwo CD Cooies PR \q- HIGH COURT' DATED:1010112025 DECREE MACMA.N o.428 of 2020 PARTLY ITLL,OWING THE APPEAL WITHOU'I'COSTS A",\qA &"@