V. VenuGopal, S/o v. Veera Chary, Aged

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl. Pallati Chandramouli Counsel for the Respondent No.2: P.Harinath Gupta The Court made the following: JUDGMENT 7 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUI(A YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.S9O of 2or23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri P. Chandra Mouli, learned counsel for the appellant/cla:mant and Sri P. Harinath Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for r,:spondent No.2/lnsurance Company and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribu ral-cum-XXlv Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (f<rr short the TribunalJ in M.V.O.P.No.222| of 2015, dated 28.10.2022, wherein an amount of Rs.2,89,177 l- was a'*,arded in a claim petition filed seeking compensation of Rs.6,OO,OOOl- on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a road traffic accident

3. The appellant met with an accident on 19.08.2015 at 05.30 hours while he was crossing the road at Alwyn cross road when he was struck by lorry bearing registration No.AP-O3-Y-0639 which was coming from opposite side. The appellant was shifted to Remedy HospLtal, Kukatpally and was treated as an inpatient from

19.08.2015 up to 23.08.2015. The appellant underwent surgery on I I 2

20.08.2015. In all, tfue appellant sustained fracture of fracture of right frontal bone, fracture of left maxilla, fracture of z5rgoma, fracture of 5th, 3.d and 2rd metatarsal in addition to other injuries all over the body.

4. The Tribunal upon considering the evidence adduqed through PWl to PW4 and the exhibits marked under Exs.Al to A9 and Ex.B1 awarded compensation of Rs.2,89,177/- with interest at

7.5o/o per annum directing the respondent Nos.l to 3 to pay the same jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the salrle, the present appeal is preferred.

5. The appeal is preferred alleging that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of PW 1 to PW4 and exhibits marked under Exs.Al to A9. The monthly notional income of the appellant was taken at Rs.6,0OO/- per month when he was earning Rs.1O,0OO/- per month pribr to the accident. The disability of 4Oo/o was not considered when the functional disability ought to have been considered at IOOo/o. Further, meagre amounts wefe awarded towards loss of earnings, transportation, extra nOurishment, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, medical bills and pharmacy bills. It is pleaded that the appellant would \r_ I I 3 suffer discomfort in marital life and suffering with trauma but the sarne were nc't considered by the Tribunal

6. The lea:'ned counsel for the appellant referred to judgment of the Delhi Hip;h Court in case between Anitha Gupta v. Kamlesh and others {2015 ACJ 2!901, wherein, an amount of Rs.1,OO,OOO/- is ordered towards depression caused on account of injuries sustrrined in the accident. Lastly, the appellant sought enhancing of interest to l2oh on the compensation awarded.

7. During arguments in appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant refe:rred to judgment of this Court in case between Syed Saleem and others v. Abdul Shukur and anotherl, wherein, it is held that the disability certificate of the injured need not be issued by the doctor who treated him and that any other qualified Medical Practitioner also may issue the same. Further, referring to the time gap between the accident and the date of issuance of medical certificate, a reference is made to the legal ratio laid down in aforementionr:d judgment (1 supra), wherein, it is held that time gap in obtainlng disability certificate cannot be viewed in isolation as the disabil:ty cannot be assessed immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries, but can be assessed only after the ' zooz 1r1 ALT 648 (s.n.) 4 \ \r 'r'- -\ wounds are healed and that when the time taken to obtain the disability certificate is not too long, the genuineness of the - certificate need not be doubted

8. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the notional income of the appeltant at Rs.6,OOO/- per month while not considering Rs.1O,O0O /- per month as there was no d.ocumentar5r evidence to support the appellant's claim. As per police record., the appellant is shown to be a laboufer aged 50 years. The notional income of the labourer in the year 2015 being taken at Rs.6,OOO/- per month does not seem unreasonable. There are four fracture injuries and therefore, Rs.1,OO,O00/- is awarded towards pain and suffering g. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.4O,OOO/- towards loss of amenities. The fracture of maxilla on the face would cause inconvenience'in eating food on day to day basis ar[d therefore, Rs.1,OO,OOO/- is awarded towards the inconvenience faced for tifelong in the consuming food. Further, Rs.SO,OOO/- is awarded towards the disfiguration suffered on account of fracture to the frontal bone.

10. While taking the loss of earnings at Rs.6,0OO l- per month, in6rference is not made with the Tribunal awarding Rs-36,0O0/- 5 towards loss cf earnings for six months time period that may have been taken f<rr healing of the fractures. The appellant is awarded Rs. 1O,OOO/- towards transportation charges and Rs.25,O0O/- towards extr,a nourishment. No interference is made with the compensation. awarded towards damage to clothing at Rs.2,OOO/-, attendant chirges at Rs. 18,000/-, hospital bills at Rs.l,l7,476l- and pharmac'yr bills at Rs. 15,701/-.

11. Coming to the disability, the Tribunal failed to consider the disability suffered by the appellant which according to the evidence of PW4 is 4Oout, which may lead to functional disability at 8O7o as he cannot do any hard labour work. However, said PW4 also deposed that the ap'cellant came walking when he was issued with Ex.A8/ Disability certificate. Even so, ttre loss of earning due to disability is taken at 2Oo,/o. The appellant was aged 50 years at the time of accid.ent. To qtrantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, as per age and income of deceased, lf l Oo/o of the income is included as future prospects as \ per law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others2, the €rnnual income would be I / Rs.79,2OOl- iRs.6,OOO/-x 12 + 7,2OO/-). As per the authority in 'zorz 101 rzo 1sc1 {l sarla verma v. Delhi Transport corporation3, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiptier of .13,, the loss of future earnings of t.l.e appellant due to disability at loo/o is Rs-2,o5,92o1- (Rs.79,20o/- x 13 x 20/rool.In all, the appeflant is entitled for Rs.6, SOrOgZI-. ',1 '1 12- Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is aflowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,g9, LTT / - to Rs.6,80,097 /-, which shall carry interest at 9o/o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. However, the appellant shall pay the deficit court Fee on the enhanced compensation. on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appear, shall stand closed- There shail be no order as to costs. SD/. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR6 / //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Tribunal-Cum-XXiv Addl. Chief Jgdge,_Qity_Civil C_ourt, Hyderabad. (with records if any) ,^ C12. One CC to SRl. Pallati Chandramouli, AdVocate [OpUC] frC , 3. One CC to SRl.P.Harinath Gupta, Advocate tOpUCl Y\ o rwo CD copies :. a .. | .':.j r"!i \',..:.,-._ .! / I STATE o r) \\\ t1 1\1\ + i HIGH COURT' DATED:14 108,t2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.590 of 2023 M.A.C.M.A. IS I\LLOWED. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 590 OF 2023 Between: E. Maruthi, S/o Nagaiah Aged about. 48 years, Occ. Presently nil (Previously working as Labour) R/o H.No. 1-14115, Wadlam, Bichukunda, Wadlam Nizambad District ... Petitioner/Appellant AND

1. T. Raghunandan Reddy, S/o Krishna Reddy Aged. Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry bearing No. AP 03 Y 0639 R/o H.No. 8-3-165/1 behind Gokul theatre, Enagadda, Hyderabad

2. National lnsurance Company, Ltd Rep. by its Divisionh Manager, T.P. Claims Hub, Jubilee Building, Station Road, Abids Hyderabad-500001

3. V. VenuGopal, S/o V. Veera Chary, Aged. 29 years, Occ. Driver of Lorry Bearing No. AP 03 Y 0639 R/o Khila ghanpur village and Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District (Respondent no.3 is not necessary party to this appeal) ...Respondents Appeal u/s. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and Decree made in M.V.O.P.No.2221 of 2015, daled:2811012022 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident -Claims Tribunal-Cum-Xx|V Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing tt;e grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Debree of the Court below and,the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P.Chandra Mouli, Advocate for the Appellant and of Sri P.Harinath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No. 2. This Court doth order and Decree as follows:

1. Thatthe MACMA beand herebyis allowed; 2. That ttre compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,89,177l- to Rs.6,80,097/-, which shall carry interest at 9o/o per annum on the enranced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization; 3. That the respondents shall deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks 4. That the appellant shall pay the deficit Court Fee on the enhanced 5. That on such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment; comperrsation; without furnishing the security;

6. That th,:re shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. SD'. A.H.S.GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR C //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-Tribunal-Cum-XXiV Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. (with records if any)

2. Fwo CD Copies JAIPSL A. HIGH COURT DATED: 1410812025 DECREI: MACMA.No.S90 ot 2023 M.A.C.M A. IS ALLOWED