The High Court · 2025

learned Tribunal has properly appreciated the facts of the case and awarded just compensation to the appellant - petitioner and the learned Tribunal has rightly discarded the evidence of PW2 with regard to tiOo/o disability. Counsel to substantiate his contentions relied on (i) T.J.Parameshwarappa Vs. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Limited and Othersl and (iil United tndia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed and Otherr;2.

12. Learned counsel for t]re appellant - petitioner has {iled calculatiorr memo in support of his contentions.

13. Heard learned counsel on record and perused the material.

14. Now the points for consideration are: t. Whet.her the learned Tribunal has awarded just compensation to the a.ppellant - petitioner, if so?

2. Whet-her awarded passed by the Tribunal in O.P.NO. 141 I of 2OO 1, daterl OS.L2.2OO5 suffers from arry perversity or illegality, if so does it requires interference of this Court? iI I ' MANU/SC/lsro/2022 , MANU/AP/O'I7 /2OO3 \ 6lLL , BRMR,J MACMA-i{o.37 9 t of ?.OO8 '"..\:

15. The a.mount claimed by the appellant petitioner in O.P.No.L4LL of 2OO1 under different heads is as under: A B A B FOR SPECIAL DAIvIAGES Forloss of eamings Tbansport to hospital, medical operrdihrre and extranouristrment FOR GEI{ERAL DAT{AGES AMOUNT 15,80,000/- 1,50,000/- Compensatiur for pain and suffering 50,000/ Compensaticr for loss of permanent disability 5O,OOO/- Total 18,3O,000/- But the appellant - petitioner restricted his claim for Rs.3,OO,OOO/- (Rupees Three Lakhs on$.

16. Appellant - petitioner has questioned the quantum in the appeal and there is no dispute with regard to the manner in which the accident has occrured.

17. The evidence of PW2 - Dr.Dhoom Singh is that on

01.08.2001 he examined the appellant - petitioner in government hospital with IP.No.1O698. As per X-ray there is a communited fracture of right femur and same side extra capsular fracture right femur. Necessar5r medical treatment is given and btood { inyestigation is also done. Blood transfusion is administered to the patient thereafter referred to higher hospital i.e., Gandhi Hospital, 7 ltt BRMR, J MACMA.No.3791 of 2OO8 Secundera.bad on O4.O8.2O01. Ex.C1 is the case sheet and Ex.C2 are the X-rays belonging to PWl. Injuries mentioned in Ex.A3 - injury cer'-ificate is colTesponding to Ex.AS - discharge ticket issued by Government Hospital, Nizamabad. PW2 examined the patient at the time of his deposition and found three inches shortening with malunited fracture of the femur and stiffness of the right l.:nee joint having difficulty in squatting with cross limb which requires support of the stick, the disability is about 600/o of permanenl. and partial disability. He advised X-ray at the time of examining the patient. [t is noteworthy to mention here that PW2 is examined r)n commission.

18. Ex.A.3 - injury certificate goes to show that the appellant - petitioner has sustained fracture of shaft right femur. Ex.Cl - case sheet of thre appellant - petitioner issued by Government Hospital, Nizamabarl also shows that the appellant - petitioner has sustained comminut':d fracture of shaft right femur. The evidence of the appellant - petitioner with that of PW2 are in consonance with Exs.A3 an,C C 1.

19. The learned Tribunal has obsenied in paragraph Nos.23 and 24 while awarding compensation, which reads as under: "23. The petitioner stated that he spend Rs.4,00,0O0/- (Rupees four lakhs only) towards medical expenses.. But he has not liled any document before the courl that he spend Rs. 4,O0,000/- (Rupees four Lakhs only). The slLL BRMR, J MACMA.No.3791 of 20o,B t petitioner also not filed any document before this Court to show that he is earning Rs.3,O00/- (Rupees three thousand only) per month. Therefore the petitioner failed to prove that he spend Rs.4,OO,OOO/- (Rupees bur lakhs only) towards merlical expenses and he sustained loss of earnings due to disability.

24. Ttre remaining portion the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and one simple injury. As per tlre table tlrc petitioner is entitled for Rs.S,0OO/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards grievous injury and Rs.t,OO0/- (Rupees One tlrousand only) for the simple injury. As per Ek.Cl the petitioner was treated in the Govt. hospital for 4 days and treated for comminuted fracture right shaft femur. Therefore tl.e petitioner has to suffer lot of pain. Therefore the petitioner is entifled for Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only! towards pain and suffering. The petitioner got filed the bills for Rs.16O/- The petitioner has filed tt"re bills under Ex.A6 out of which one is the medical bill and another 2 are betongs to bills issued by the HP petrol bunk polby another one is belongs to jewellery and another bill for parking charges. The petitioner also filed some X-rays and patholory reports. But he has not filed any document before tlle C,ourt. Therefore the petitioner is entitled for Rs.1O,OOO/- (Rupees ten tlrousand only) towards medical expenses, in all The petitironer has to take rest for at least 5 months for the fracture. Therefore he is entitled for Rs.7,50O/- {Rupees Seven thousand five hundred only) towards loss of estate. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs. 1,5O0/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred onlyf towards transportation and extra nourishment."

20.1, In T.J.Parameshwarappar th€ Supreme Court has summariz,e the principle with regard to permanent disabilitSr, which reads as under: "We may now summarise the principles discussed above: (i) All injuries (or permanent disabilities arising from injuries), do not result in loss of earningcapacity. (ii) The percentage of perrnanent disability with reference to the whole body of a person, cannot be assumed to be the percentage of loss of earning I -.,.n'u" 9/Lt . BRMR,J MACMA.No.379L ot2OOa capacity. '[o put it differently, the percentage of loss of earning capacity is not the same as the percentage of permanent disability (except in a few cases, where the Tribunal on the basis of evidence, concludes that the percentag,-' of loss of earning capacit5r is the serme as the percentage of permanen t disability) . (iii) The ctoctor who treated an injured claimant or who examined him subsequerrtly to assess the extent of his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard to the extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning ctpacity is something that will have to be assessed by tl:e Tribunal with refen:nce to the evidence in entirety. (M The silme perrnanent disability may result in difrerent percentages of loss of ealning capacity in different persons, depending upon the nature of professiorL, occupation or job, age, education and other factors." 2O.2Ir. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed2 the High Court observed that it is necessary to have proper medical evidence on. record for assessing the grievousness of tl.e injuries and also the extent of disability in an inquiry for compensation.

21.1 The appellant - petitioner has not liled any disabitity certificate to show that he is 6O% disabled. The learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the evidence of PW2 with regard to the disability as there is no documentar5r evidence to show that appeltant - petitioner has sustained 600/o disability in the road accident. 2L.2 Appr-'llant - petitioner stated in the claim petition that his monthly irrcome is Rs.1O,OOO/- by doing cloth business, the same is taken irrto eonqideration and he has taken rest for at least five 1Ol11 BRMR,J MACMA.No.3791 of 2OO8 months. Hence he is entitled for loss of earnings at the rate of Rs.IO,OOOl- per month for a period of five months, which comes to Rs.SO,OOO/- [1O,OOO x 5]. The appellant - petitioner is also entitled for transportation, extra nourishment and miscellaneous expenses to an extent of Rs.SO,OOO/-.

22.1 The calculation arrived by this Court is as under: S1.No. Name of the head Grievous injury Simple t4iuries Compensation awardd by this Court Rs.5,OOO/- Rs.1,@O/- Pain and suffering Rs.5O,OOO/- loss of eamings (Rs.1O,OOO l- Wr month) Rs.SO,OOO/- (For firre months) Transportation nourishment Total CIffia Rs"SO,OOO/- Rs.l,56,OO0/- I

3. 4

22.2 The learned Tribr-lnal has awarded interest at the rate of

7.5o/o per annum, which has to be enhanced. to 9o/o ds per the decision in the case of Anjali and Others vs. lokendra Rathod and others3.

23. In the result, MACMA.No.3791 of 2OO8 is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal isrentra4ced as under: '*u 3 2Oa? ScC OnLine SC 1683 tLltt BRMR, J MACMA.No.379L of 2OO8 a) The impugned award dated OB.L2.2OOS, passed in O.P.lrlo.1411 of 2OO1 stands modified. b) The ()ompensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.40,ooo/- is errhanced to Rs.1,56,oool- together with interest at the rate of 9o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till pa5mrent. c) The ;:espondent Nos.l and 2 are hereby directed to deposit the eLwarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 6o drrys from the date of receipt of a copy of tllis judgment. d) Appetlant - petitioner is permitted to withdraw. the entire amotmt with costs and interest thereon without furnishing securit5r. As a sequel miscellaneous application/s pending if any shall stand closed. No costs. Sd,. M. JAWAHAR REDDY REGISTRAR ,/TRUE COPY/J SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The chairman, Motor Accid.ent claims Tribunal-cum-lv Additional District irJg" tFrst irick Court) at Nizamabad'

2.OneCCtoSriP.RadhiveReddy,Advocate[OPUC] 3. Two ccs to (GP for Services), GP for Animal Husbandry, High court for the State of T,alangana' [OUT]

4. Two CD C;oPies KVR lk # N EO F i- E :f, \$ls \1 1* r1 -s*i . ."1' - " +{ f::ta,! ^ *. -::Y.'':' HIGH COURT BRMR, J DATED: 05/1 212025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.N,o.3791 of 2008 PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS o-h #{/\ fttl" tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3791 OF 2008 Between: Mohd. lbrahim Khan, S/o. Mohd. Nabi Khan, aged 34 years, Occ: Cloth Business R/o. Degloor, Nanded, Presently R/o.9-1 2-115,.Ahmedpura Colony, Nizamabad District. ...CLAIMANT/APPE LLANT AND

1. Assistant Direclor of Animal Husbandry., (Rindrapost Eradiction Scheme) Chevella, Ranga Reddy District, Owner of the Ternpo Trax Jeep t'.lo.AP-28-C- 9590.

2. Govemment of Andhra Pradesh, rep., by its, Director, Animal Husbandry, Hyderabad. ... RESPON DE NTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the order and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1411 of 2001 dated 8l12l2OO5 on the file of the Court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-lV Additiona! District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the gnounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri P. Radhive Reddy, Advocate for the appellant and GP for Services 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 enhancing the compensation amount from Rs 40,000 to Rs 1,56,000 and also enhancing the rate of interest lrom 7.5o/o per annum to 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment;

2. That the respondent No 1 & 2 be and hereby are directed to deposit the awardr:d amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount alread'y paid lf any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a - copy of this judgment;

3. That ttrc Appellant-Petitioner be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the entire amourrt with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

4. That s;ave as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall stand confirmed in alt other erspects; and

5. That tl'rere shall be no order as to costs in this appeal //TRUE COPY/' To,

1. The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tr Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad.

2. Two CD Copies KVR Y< sd/- M. AWAHAR REDDY ANT N OFFICER Additional District HIGH COT'RT BRMR, J ATED: 05/1 212025 DECREE MACMA.No.3791 of 2008 ARTLY ALLOWED P WITHOUT COSTS $