The High Court · 2025

Judgment

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appeliant-petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short

('the Act, i988J, aggrieved by the award and decree, dated

21.07.2O2O passed in M.V.O.P.No. 1997 of 2015 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additionai Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribuna-l'), wherein the petitioner was granted compensation of Rs. 11,79,OOO1- u'ith interest @ 7.5o/o per arlnum.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as thev are arrayed before Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that initially the petitioner frled a claim-petition under Section 166 (1) of the Act, 1988 read u,ith Ruie 455 of Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,OOOi - lor the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred 2 fiocmo 552 2020 ol 28.11.2014 at about 1O:OO hours near Katam+iah Temple outskirts of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, lrlelgonda District. Subsequently, the petitioner hled a petition for enhancement of compensation from Rs.6,0O,000/- to Rs.12,O0,OO0/-. On

28.1L.2O14 at about 1O:OO hours the petitioner along with his wife and his minor daughter were proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP- 2 9 - R- 53 54 from Bibinagar towards Bhongir side and when they reached near Katamaiah Temple outskirts of Bibinagar Village and Mandal, Nalgonda District, the driver of Mahindra Xvlo vehicle bearing No.AP-09-BY- 9955 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed to the motorcycle from opposite direction. Due to .,vhich the petitioner, his wife and his child fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir and after giving hrst aid, he was joined in Sai Sanjeevini Hospital, Hyderabad. (i) The police Bibinagar registered a case in Crime No.2O1 of 2Ol4 under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle- Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and he was inpatient e-. 3 NNRJ motno s52 2020 in Sai Sanjeevini Hospital for a period of three days and undergone surgery. Thereafter, he was shifted to Apollo Hospital where he undergone surgery and spent huge amount around Rs.2,25,OOO/- for treatment. (ii) At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged about 38 years, working as a private emplo.yee in Angle Constructions and Builders Private Limited and earning a sum of Rs.2,82,OOO l- per annum. Due to the injuries he is unable to work and he suffered permanent disability. Respondent No.1, being driver and respondent No.2, being owrrer of the crime vehicle and respondent No.3, being insurer of the crime vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

4. Respondent Nos.l and 2 remained e.x parte before the Tribunal

5. Respondent No.3-lnsurance Companv ftIed counter-affidavit does not admit occurrence of accident and sustaining of injuries by the petitioner. It is stated that respondent No.3 also denies the manner of acciclent i.e., rash and negligent driving of driver of the crime vehicle. Further, 4 NNNJ modno_ss2_2020 respondent No.3 denies the age and earnings of the petitioner. It is further stated that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the motorcycle without observing tra{Iic rules. It also denied that the driver of the crime vehicle vi,as having driving licence at the time of accident. It is further stated that the claim made by the petitioner is exorbitant and excessive and hence, it prayed to dismiss the claim-petitron.

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: "1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle Mahindra XYLO bearing No.AP 29 BY-9955 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioncr is entitled for compensation If so, to what amount and from rvhom?

3. To what relieP"

7. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the petitioner PWs. 1 to 6 were examined and Exs.Al to All and Exs.X1 and X-2 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, no ora-l 5 NNR! mocmo 552 2020 evidence was adduced but Ex.B1-insurance policy was marked

8. After considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the petitioner and the insurance company, the learned Tribunal came to conclusion that the subject accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said Mahindra XYLO vehicle bearing No.AP-09-BY-9955 and accordingly the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.IL,79,9OOl- in favour of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said compensation au,arded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-petitioner preferred the present appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.2,82,000/- per annlrm, instead of Rs.6,OO0/- per month having discussed at paragraph No.28 ol the impugned Judgment and did not believe the version of P.W.6, who issued Ex.A.9-salary certificate, which is stated as follows 5 NNRJ mocmo 552 2020 'As per the above decision it is clear that the certificate produced by the private company or private person has to be scrutinized carefully. In order to prove the same, the petitioner relied on the evidence of P.W.6. P.w.6 deposed that he is Proprietor of the said constructions and builders company and petitioner worked in his comp.rny as supervisor and he paid Rs.2,82,000/- per annum and he deposed that he issued Ex.A.9. During cross examination P.W.6 admitted that he has not filed any proof that he is the proprietor of Angle Constructions and Buitders Private Limited. He has not hled any income tax returns. He do not remember when the petitioner joined him. He also admitted that he has not filed any proof to show that he pa.id Rs-2,82,00O/- per annum to the petitioner. He has not frled any proof that he paid salary in the year 2014. Tlne e\ridence of P.W.6 establish that there is no proof that rhe P.W.6 is the Proprietor of Angle Constructions and Builders Private Limited and he paid Rs.2,82,OO0/- per annum to the petitioner- P-W.6 has not filed any income tax returns nor licence of his constructions and builders company nor Lre filed any connected record of the petitioner and employment o[ the petitioner in his company. The petitioner has not hled an,r' proof that he paid Rs.2,82,O00/ -per annum. So the eyidence of P-W.6 and Ex.A 9 carnot be considered. The petitioner not filed an\ record that he worked under P-W.6 and he received Rs.2,82,000/- per annum as salan from P.W-6- The petitioner also not filed an"v income tax receipts or an1 receipt or any account pafiiculars to shou, payment made b\ P.W.6." But, the learned Tribunal disbelieved the version of P.W.6 and erroneously fixed the income of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.6,OOO/- per month without considering the Circular issued by the District Collector/Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, dated 22.O8.2O 17

10. POINT: 7 NNR) mocmo 552 2020 This appeal is frled by the petitioner-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. The petitioner examined P.W.6 the Proprietor of the Constructions and Building Company where he has been working as Supervisor and getting an amount of Rs.2,82,00O/- per annllm as salar5r. In proof of the same, he also hled Ex.A.9- salary certificate But, the learned Tribunal erroneously taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,OOO/- per month, which is meagre

11. The subject accident had occurred in the year

2014. As per the Circular issued by the District Collector/Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District, dated

22.08.2017 the minimum wages which were prescribed ln respect of skiiied workers i.e., Carpenter, plumbers, typists, stenos etc., and taking the said circular into consideration though the petitioner would not have got the saicl income all along a month, but considering the ground realities, the salan l income/wages of the petitioner can be taken notionally at Rs.8,000/- per month basing on the minimum \\'age s. Lcarned counsel for the petitioner also placed I NrvR_/ nocmo 552 2020 reliance on the judgment in Jagdish v. Mohan and othersr and submits that as the petitioner is aged about 38 years and doing private job, he is entitled for 4Oo/o towards future prospects. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs. 1 l,2OO I - (Rs.8000 + 3200) and the annual income comes to Rs. 11,2O0 x 12 = 1,34,4OO/-. ft is stated that due to the accident, the petitioner sustained disability and in proof of same he frled Ex.A.6-disability certihcate issued by the Medical Board. The same is not disputed by learned Standing Counsel for respondent.3. As on the date of the accident since petitioner was aged about 38 years, the relevant multiplier to be applied as per Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation z, is '15' as the petitioner is in the age group of 36 to 40 years. After calculating the same, the loss of income on account of disability would come to Rs. 1,34,4O0 x 15 x45l 1OO = 9,O7,2OO / -.

12. So far as other amounts, which are awarded by the Tribunal under various heads i.e., tou,ards damages, transportation, extra nourishment, clothes and articles, medical expenditure, pain and suffering and future medical 'zota Ao 1011 ' (zoog) o scc tzt 9 NNA-/ mocmo 552 2020 expenditure, needs no interference by this Court since the said amounts appears to be just and reasonable

13. Considering re-assessment made by this Court, the petitioner u,ould be entitled to as follows: i) Damages towards permanent disability on account of accident Rs. i 1,200/- X 12 x 15x 45/ 100 ii) iii ) iv) D amages towards transportation Damages tovi,ards extra nourishment Damages towards clothes and articles r') Medicalexpenditure vi) Damages towards pain a-nd sufferings r ii) Fu..,-rre N{edical expenditure 9,07,200-00

5.000-00

20.000-00 5,000-00 1,69,500-00 50,000-00 2,50,000-00 TOTAL 14,06,700-00 Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 14,06,700/-. Accordinglv, the point is answered in favour of the petitioner and against respondents. L4. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the petitioner claimed onll er sum of Rs.12,00,OOO/- as compensation and the 10 ,Vr\rR./ mocno 552 2020 quantum of compensation which is now ar,r,arded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law

15. In view of Judgments of the Honble Apex Court tn Laxman @ Laxman Mourya o. Diuisional Manager, Orientat Insurance Compang Ltmited and anothen: and Nagappa o. Guntdagal Stnghe the petitioner is entitled to get more amount thal what has been claimed, hou,ever subject to paJment of the Defrcit Court Fee

16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allou,ed enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,79,900/- to Rs. 14,06,700l- (Rupees Fourteen lakhs six thousand seven hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7 .5%o per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondent No.3-Insrlrance company is directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from the date of receipt of a copv of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is directed to withdraw the same without furnishing an.v.- security as '(zott) to scc zs6 ' 2OO3 AO 12 (SC) Wtc 11 lvruR] mocno 552 2O2O directed by the Tribunal. The appellant shall deposit/pay the deficit Court fee within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of the order. On such deposit, the decree shall be prepared by the Registry. There shall be no order as to Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shal stand closed SD'.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY" s TION OFFICER To, u\)t' 1 The file of ihe court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Xl Additionai Cnief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. 2. One CC to SRI c MOHAN PRAKASH Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI V SAMBASIVA RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.552 of 2020 o() ( * 1H SIn{€ Oa ).(rl 1 B l'll\R 202fi t' PP.TC ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS U i,r l ,'- <,,i \:o\ \ ,./