The High Court · 2025

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI M.A.C.M.A No. 1684 ot 2024 JUDGMENT: This appeal has been filed by the appellanVclaim petitioner aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded in the Decree and Order, daled 12.02.2024 passed in M V.O.P.No.439 of 2022 on the file of the I Additional District Judge-cum- Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Tribunal, Karimnagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

2. Heard A V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No 3/ lnsurer 3 Briefly stated the appellant/claim petitioner's case is that on

27.09.2022, while he was proceeding on motor cycle, at Lanapur, one Lorry bearing registration No. TS 02 UC 9009 driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed his motor cycle and caused grievous injuries all over his body. Thus, claiming medical expenses. permanent disability filed claim- petition for compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Tribunal having considered the material placed by the appellanUclaim petitioner I 2 NIR.J MACMA 1684 2024 (hereinafter 'the petitioner') awarded Rs.7,41,416/- with interest at

7.5o/o pet annum from the date of petition till realization towards compensation against the driver, owner and insurer of the Lorry/respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellanVclaim-petitioner would contend that the Tribunal though accepted the evidence of the doctor-PW.2, disbelieved the disabllity certificate/Ex,A'16 and erroneously granted lump sum amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for the disability contrary to the prescribed procedure- He further contended that the Tribunal has not considered the heads of loss of earnings, extra nourishment and granted meager amount for attendant charges and transportataon. Thus, prayed for reassessment and to grant just compensation.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer pleaded that though the disability has been pleaded, the appellant failed to make out a clear case as to its effect on the occupation and the income of the appellant. However, the Tribunal had considered the case of the petitioner leniently in granting huge amount for pain and sufferings and other heads. Therefore, assessment of .compensation was on proper lines, the awarded amount is 3 NIR,J MACMA_1684-2024 reasonable, as such, no tenable ground is made out in appeal for interference 6 I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel.

7. The rival contentions are giving rise to the point for determination is. whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the appellant/claim petitioner is just and proper. B. The petitioner/P.W.1, treating doctor/p.W.2, deposed ihat the petitioner had received eight grievous injuries. Further, the doctor/P.W.2 assessed physical condition of the petitioner and opined that the injuries resulted in floating knee and stiffness due to which there would be restriction in range of motion of the knee joint and the petitioner cannot drive a vehicle in future. Disability Ceriificate/Ex.A16 demonstrating that the disabitity of the petitioner at 60% Further, the doctor/p.W.2 validated the medical bills issued by the hospital.

9. The Tribr,rnal having regard to the above read evidence and bills/Exs.Al 1 to A13 granted to Rs.4,29,416/-. As this finding is based on the material on record and in the absence of a1y .- I II 4 NTR.J MACMA_1684_2024 n contest, this amount is affirmed. Further, having regard to the nature and severity of the injures and period of treatment undergone, granting Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and sufferings is found proper.

10. ln regard to the disability, considering the evidence of the doctor/P.W.2 and as the injuries effected the limb of the petitioner, whose claimed occupation of Dump Operator and restriction of knee movement would certainly affect the occupational abilities and possibilities of error in rating the disability by the doctor, accounting 50% disability in fulure earning capacity of the petitioner can safely be believed.

11. The petitioner had claimed his relevant age at 33 years and Rs.18,000/- per month as Dump Operator. Age of the petitioner has not been disputed by the respondents and the employeriP.W.3 in his evidence certified the occupation of the petitioner and monthly earning Rs.18,0001. ln the absence of any material in contra, except the suggestion of the denial, accounting Rs. 18,000i- as monthly income of the petitioner is found proper. 7 -) NTR.J MACMA 1684 2024

12. lt is settled proposition that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo Yadav v. V. Naresh Kumar and othersl held that the future prospects enunciated in National lnsurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 is equally applicable in assessment of compensation for the disability. Accordlngly, for the regular employment and the age of the petitioner, 50% of the I income towards future prospects has to be added, therefore, the monthly income would be of Rs.27,000/- (18,000X50%) and annual income at Rs.3,24,000/-. As the disability is effecting.50% of the future rncome, half of the annual income i.e. 1,62,000/- has to be taken as rnultiplicand to multiply with relevant multiplier to the age of the petitioner as prescribed in the authority of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothef i.e '16', the amount would come to Rs.25,92,000/- (1,62,000X16). The claim petitioner is entitled for this amount towards loss of future earnings due to disability. 13 Further, having regard to the possible effect of the disability in the enjoyment of amenities of life, granting Rs.25 000/- towards loss of amenities is found proper rr rl-r l6 \( ( t^ i lr ir) \( r I l,)\ I , 6 NTR,J MACMA 1684 2024 n

14. The Tribunal having regard to the period of treatment and the statement of the employer/P.W.3 that the salary was paid only to the extent of the period of his attendance, granted Rs.72,0001 towards loss of earning during the period of treatment i.e. four months. As this conclusion is found reasonable, confirmed. Further, as the petitioner undergone treatment for four months granting attendant charges at Rs.20,000/- is clearly on lower side. Hence, granting Rs.10,000/- per month towards attendant charges, in all awarding Rs.40,000/- under this head'is found proper. That apart the amounts Rs.10,0001 towards extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/- for transportation and Rs.40,0001 for future medical expenses granted by the Tribunal are affirmed.

15. Thus, in all, the petitioner is entitled for compensation as follows. DESCRIPTION nditure B ills the treatment Pain and sufferinq Medical Ex Loss of earnin s duri Attendant cha ES Extra nourishment Transportation Loss of future earning on account of disability al 5oo/o Loss of amenities Future medical expenses TOTAL AMOUNT (Rs ) 1,50, 000.00 4,29,416.00 72.000 00 40,000 00 10,000 00 20,000.00 25,92,000.00 2!p0q!!l-. - 40 000 00 33,78.416 00 l- 7 NTR J MACMA 1684 2024

16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by granting Rs.33,78,4'16l- (Rupees Thirty Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen Only) as compensation with proportionate costs The liability of respondents, rate of interest and other terms stipulated in the impugned order are maintained. The insurer/respondent No 3 is directed to deposit the differential amount of compensation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw entire amount. Accordrngly, the impugned decree stands modified. As a sequel. pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand clo red, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ ,N\ \----- S CTION OFFICER The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District

1. 2 3 4 i,iifi*f $sn'*Sr*+u{r.,r#if"'?s",%, . Two CD CoPies \ To pI I \, HIGH COURT DATED: OllOX12025 S TATE rlq s1t C) .> o ,) +:.=.., JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1t584 of 2024 PARTLY ALLOWED b \e{ IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1684 OF 2024 Between: Kalaveni Thirupathi, S/o. Lingaiah, Aged 33 years, Caste: Mudiraj, Occ: Driver of Volvo Vehicle of NCC Company, OCB-2, SCC, Cent'enary Colony, Godavarikhani, R:/o. Akkepalli Village of Manthani Mandal of Peddapaili Districi, Presently residing H.No. 2-10-262, Mukarampura locality of Karimhagar Town and proper ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER lN MVOP NO.439 ot 2022 AND 1 2 3 Sayyad Nazeer, S/o. Shaik Sayyad, Aged 30 years, Caste: Muslim, O-ccupation Driver of Lorry bearing No. TS-02-UC-9009, R/o. ponakal Village of Jannaram Mandal of Mancherial District. lvlohammed Taher, Sio. Khaja Fakuddin, Aged not known to the petitioner, but major, Caste: Muslim, Occupation: Ownei of Lorry bearing No. TS-O2-UC- 9009, R/o. H.No. 7-2-1115tA, Mankammathoti, Neai Raithu Bazar. Karimnagar Proper. The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, H.No. 3-5-83, 1"t Floor, Upstairs of Andhra Bank, Main Branch building, Osmanpura, Girls College Road, Karimnagar, R/by its Branch Manager. (Policy No. 6109043'1220i00000007 valid from 21-04-2022 to midnight of 20-04-2023) ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS in MVOP.NO.439 OF 2022 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in M.V.O.P.No. 439 of 2022 dated. 12.02.2024 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- I Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar. 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 SRl. A V K S PRASAD, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO, Counsel for the Respondents. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: '1 . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is Partly allowed by granting Rs.33,78,4161 (Rupees Thirty three lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Four Hundred and Sixteen only) as compensation with proportionate costs; 2. That the liability of respondents rate of interest and other terms stipulated in the impugned Order are maintained;

3. That the lnsurer/respondent No.3 is be and hereby directed to deposit the differential amounl of compensation within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. That on such deposit the appellant is be and hereby permitted to withdraw the entire amount;

5. That the impugned decree is be and hereby stands modified; 6. That save as aforesaid the decree of the Tribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/. N. SRIHARI ASSISTA.NT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// )C\r SECTION OFFICER -....-..........

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- | Additional District Judge, at Karimnagar.

2. Two CD Copies To N- l. HIGH COURT DATED: 0710112025 DECREE MACMA.No.1684 o12024 PARTLY ALLOWED 9 v5