Heard the submissions of Smt v. Durga

9. Heard the submissions of Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for the lnsurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the claimant is aged 30 years and was working as a Commission agent and was earning around Rs.9,8001 per month, while the tribunal has assessed his income to be very low and has granted meager amount of compensation. He further argued that the petitioner sustained 68% permanent disability, but the tribunal failed to consider the said aspect while awarding the compensation. He therefore, prayed to consider the said aspects and enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has submitted that the petitioner failed to file any proof of income before the tribunal and that the commission alleged to have been earned by the petitioner to an extent of Rs.9,800/- per month need not be taken into consideration, as it cannot be constant every month. She further submitted that the disability of 6g% is not supported by any document and that it is only temporary in nature and therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. She further argued that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is l l I I I I I \aETD,] - 1ACMA Nos.649 621 2021 4 very high and prayed to reduce the same to 7 So/o. She further argued that the tribunal has awarded huge amou rts under various heads without any reason. She therefore, pra)I d to reduce the compensation.

12. Based on the above rival contentions, this )ourt frames the following points for determination: 1 . Whether the compensation granted by the Tribun I is just and reasonable.

2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Trit 'tnal need any inteierence?

3. To what relief .

13. Point No.'t : a) The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that the tribunal has awarded meager amount of compr) rsation, while the contention of the insurance company is that .l e compensation granted by the tribunal is very high b) The injured-petitioner got examined as pV\i I and he stated that he used to work as a Commission Agent n Bharathi Axa General lnsurance Company and that he used lc earn Rs.g,BOO/_ per month as he was rendering private services unc tr one Sampath, who is a Senior lnsurance Advisor. Ex.A12 is the ( :ertificate issued by Bharathi Axa General lnsurance Company, r;, rtifying that the 5 ETD,J MACMA Nos.649 621 2021 petitioner's work is recognized for his contribution for the period from October 2012 lo December 2012. He has also filed the lT returns under Ex.X'l and X2 for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 showing his total income as Rs.'1 ,17,600/- in the year 2013-2014, Rs.43,2004 for the first half of 2014-2015. Thus, he could place it on record that he worked as an agent for Bharathi Axa General lnsurance Company and that he used to earn on an average of Rs.9,8001 per month. Thus, based on the evidence on record, it was held rightly by the tribunal that the petitioner used to earn Rs.9,800/- per monthly, which is found to be justified. c) PW2|M. Sampath Kumar who is a General lnsurance Agent, deposed that the injured-petitioner is his younger brother and that he used to do the lnsurance Business. lt is further elicited from him that following the accident, the petitioner stopped working. ln his evidence Ex.X1 and Ex.XZ are marked. In.his cross examination it is elicited that Ex.X'l and X2 are issued subsequent to the accident. No other doctor is examined in this case. d) RW1 is examined by the lnsurance Company, contending that the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license. ln his cross examination, it is elicited that they have not enquired about 6 ETD,J 1,4 CMA Nos.649 621_2021 !-\E\i ! the genuineness of the driving ricense of the drii -,r of the vehicle e) The injury certificate discroses that the petitioner has sustained injuries in an accident on 29.07.2013, wl-i : the discharge summary discloses that he was operated in the Rert e Hospital. The date of admission is on 30.07.2013 and the date rf discharge is 21 '082013. A surgery was performed on 03.08r0.r3. Later on subsequently he was again admitted in 2015, z ; he suffered septicemia in the right lower limb, Rs.1,g0,S00/_ is ilr ,final inpatient bill of Renee Hospital. 0 He has filed Ex.A6/Discharge summary, out : issued by Renee Hospital, which discloses that he ,rr Renee Hospital on 01 .07.2015, a surgery was 10.07.2015 and was discharged on 16.07.2015, and I for the following injuries i.e., .l) healed fracture right r femur, 2) fracture right proximal tibia with LCp INSIT right lower limb with septicemia, 4) KJCTO psoriasis or impaired liver function, 6) healed pulmonary koch,s st accident. He has also filed other bills of purchasing me rr is the disability certificate issued by the District l\l showing that he sustained 68% of disability to his rigll which one is rs admitted in lerformed on e was treated :pra condylar J, 3) cellutitis treatment, 5) dained in the icines. Ex.A8 ,dical Board, t lower limb, t r% - ETD,J MACMA Nos.649 621 2021 7 impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequel limbs sustained in an accident and that it is temporary disability. Therefore, an amount of Rs.2,00,0001 is awarded under the head pain and suffering. S) He has also filed certain bills issued by Renee Hospital for diagnosis and also for purchase of medicines, the total bills filed by him falls to an extent of Rs.'l ,'17,600/- apart from the inpatient bill. h) With regard to the medical expenses, the medical bills are filed to an extent of Rs.'l ,17,6001-, one l.P bill is of Rs.'l ,80,500/-, total comes up to Rs.2,98,100i-. lt is common knowledge that the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of Rs.10,000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,0001 towards incidental expenses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above i) The record shows that he was hospitalized for two spells i.e., once in 2013 and again in 2015. Therefore, he must have incurred again the expenditure under the transportation, incidental expenses etc., Therefore, further amounts of Rs.10,000/- under each head is h{trded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.'10,000/- 8 ETD,J t\41( ,lA Nos.649 621 2021 {'!!cl \. \. t.. -) 1 - \l \..] towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attend€r t charges and Rs.1 0,0004 towards incidental expenses is ranted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thur; an amount of Rs.80,000 + medical expenses of Rs.2,98,100 i.e., F s.3,78,'1001 is awarded under the heads medical expenses, :ransportation, attendant charges and incidental expenses j) With regard to the loss of earnings, in the first pell he was in the hospital for about 21 days and the nature of injury shows that he again developed septicemia in 2015. So the gravity : the injuries is such that he must have taken six months to heal ir the first spell. During the second spell. again he was admitted for 1 i days, he must have taken another three months for recovery. Theref, re, an amount of Rs.9,800 x 9 = Rs.88,200 is the amount awarded r nder the head loss of earnings. k) With regard to the loss of future earnings, the disability certificate shows the age of the petitioner as 27 yet rs in the year 2014, so he must have been aged 26 years as on lre date of the accident (29.07.2013). ln view of the dicta laid dowrr in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumay' , 680/o of disability is scaled to 5096 with regard to the whole body and the loss of future earning capao y is assessed rzot t 1to scc a43 t=t - t-44 --v ,/ 9 EID,J MACMA Nos.649 621 2021 as 25o/o. Therefore, adding 40%o towards future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.13,720l- and annual income would be Rs.1,64,6404. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.1,64,640/- x 25o/o x 17= Rs.6,99,720l-. l) ln all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation amounts 1 Compensation under the head 'injuries, shock, Pain and suffering .? _ !.o9g.ot q4rJ'inS.s, 3 Loss of future earnings due to disability Compensation under the head of medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental Total elpinsqq_- , . Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.88,200/- Rs.6,99 ,720t- 3,88,1 00i- 13,76,020t- m) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entifled is calculated as Rs.'13,76,020/- while the Tribunal has granted Rs.19,38,'107l- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal has to be reduced.

14. Point No.2:- a) ln view of the finding arrived at Point No.1 , the order and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the compensation from Rs.19,38,107 l- to Rs.13,76,0201 10 ETD,I ACMA Nos.649 521 2021 EI\l \ - b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rz te of B% on the quantum of compensation. The contention of the counsel for lnsurance Company is that it is too high. c) ln Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghute Naga Fli o and Anothel; a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granter interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensa i ,n d) ln Bandavath Mangla and Another V: sus Bandavath Suresh and Others3 and National lnsurance C rmpany Limited Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Othersa; also interest @ 7.5o/o per annum was granted on the enhanced amount ,) compensation. e) ln United lnsurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam Lingaiahs; when the Tribunal has granted rate of i terest @ 9% per annum, the High Court has modified the rate of irrl -.rest lo 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till realization. 0 A Division Bench of this High Court in Na ional Insurance Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi' has granted 7.5 ' zo2z scc online TS 606 I2023 SCC Or ine TS 1095 1Q023 SCC Ontine TS I I 70 5 20> scc ontine Ts 9 t5 6 2024 SCC Ontine TS 2050 E:_1'-:_a:-- -- -::ir--::- 7 11 MACMA Nos.649-521-2021 % per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till realization. S) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions' this Court has been consistently granting interest @7 '5Y" on the compensation that is awarded in such cases. \ \ h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also' Thus' the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7'5olo' Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly' 15 POINT NO.3:- ln the result tr/ACMA.No.621 ot 2021 filed by the claimants is dismissed'whiletr4ACMA.No.64gof202lfiledbythelnsurance Company is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated o3.o5.2o21in]vl.V.o.P.No.104of2017passedbytheChairman' tt/lotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge' (FTC), Mancherial, by reducing the compensation from 19'38'1071- to Rs.13,76,d201- and by reducing the rate of interest from 8% to 7.5o/o pet annum from the date of claim petition till realization' However, the interest for the period of delay, if any' is forfeited' The appellant in MACMA'No.649 of 2021-lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a i;r;.j j';i'^ir i"{:i: ti' ETD,J MACMA los.649 621 2021 72 period of two months from the date of receipt of a ;opy of this judgment after deducting the amount if any already <h posited' On suchdeposit,theclaimantisentitledtowithdrawthe;aidamount without furnishing any security. No costs. fi/iscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this 'ppeal' shall stand closed. Sd/- II. OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSI iTANT REGISTRAR II //TRUE COPY// To,

1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cunr Additional District SECTION OFFICER Judge, (FTC) Mancherial.

2. One CC to tMr. S. Surender Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri M. Satish Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KVR/kam I -) .qt - I :- I s HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 ( r-)i1r[8 *- ,( ri" COMMON JUDGMENT MACMA.Nos.649 and 621 of 2021 MACMA.No.649 of 2021 lS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA.N o.621 of 2021 IS DISMISSED v 134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENW SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M ,A.Nos: 649 and 621 of 2021 Between: The United lndia lnsurance Company Limited' T"p' Uy its Branch Manager' Office vide eranch Offi; CoOe tto.t5ZSOZ, Hotel Karam Building, Pune-Nasik R;";, o;; St. stand PIN -422605, Ahmadnasar(Ms)02425-225291- .. ^^- ;;;ilri:^ N/ncMn Nto.o+s "i zizt & Respondent No'2 in MACMA No 62I of 2021 ...AppellanUResPondent No'2 AND 2 I Mattapally Santosh Kumar, S/o Late Venkat Rao' Aged 33 years'^ Occ: General lnsurance Agent and Part time Employee under M sampath senior lnsurer Adviser for non-tiie lnsurance at Mancherial Fl/o'H No 1-236/1' Ha"i"tni Nfagar, genlnO tfre Omce of RDO' Mancherial' Mandal' Mancherial District, Adilabad. (Died per LR R-3) ...RespondenUpetitioner Occ: Driver-Cum-Owner Vikram Ramu Wagh, S/o.Ramdas, Aged 38 Of the offending r-oiw Oeaiing Registration N'MH14AS-9277 'Post Aklapur' Tq Sangamner' District' iio.vetrrropawaoi Village' Ahmednagar, Maharastra State' A;ild"';'No.i in vrnirran.No.649 of'2021 and Respondent No'1 in MACMANo.621 of 202'1 irir,irprirv sr"tha, Wo Late Venkat Rao' Age:67 years' occ: Household' of RDO Mancherial' R/o.H.No.1-236it, Marutnrnagar, Behind tl{ M;;;h;;ri Dstrict. (vide coJrt order dat ed 07 -o7 -2025 in lA'No'3 or 2025) ...ResPondenUResPondent No'1 -Years' "-trlt^"- 3 Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in Ir/.V.O.P.No.104 0f 2017 dated 03-05-2021 0n the file of the court of the ChairmanMotorAccidentClaimsTribunal.cum-llAdditionalDistrictJudge'(FTC) Mancherial. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the argument of Mr' S Surender Reddy' Advocate for the Appellant No.2 in lvlACMA.No.621 of 2021 and I espondent No.3 in MACMA.No.649 of 2021 No counsel were present for lespondent No.1 in MACMA.No.621 of 2021 & Respondent No.2 in MACMA.No.0, 9 of 2021 and Sri M, Satish Reddy, Advocate for Sole Appellant in MACMA.[' 1.649 of 2021 and Respondent No.2 in MACMA No.621 of 2021. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA.No.621 ol 2021 tiled by the claimir ts be and hereby is dismissed;

2. That the MACMA.No.649 of 2021 filed by the lnsurar hereby is partly allowed by reducing the compensatio ;e Company be and from 19,38,1071 to Rs.13,76,020/- by reducing the rate of interest from 89 to 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of claim petition till realization;

3. That the interest for the period of delay if any be and her 4. That the appellant in IMACMA.No.649 of 2021 insur:.r hereby is directed to deposit the compensation amourt within a period of two months from the date of rec: Judgment after deducting the amount if any already delx 5. That on such deposit, the claimant be and hereby is e r by is forfeited; :e company be and with accrued interest rrt of a copy of this sited; ritled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security;

6. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court s rall stands confirmed ' in all other respects; and

7. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// sd/- ASS II. OSMAN ALI BAIG I;TANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The chairman Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cunr, I Additional District 2. Two CD Copies Judge, (FTC) lvlancherial. To, KVR/kam HIGH COURT DATED:2210912025 DECREE MACMA.Nos.649 and 621 ot 2021 MACMA.No.649 of 2021 lS PARTLY ALLOWED MACMA.No.621 ot 2021 IS DISMISSED \ t\ v \-y