Total vs BRMR, J

Dr.Srinath, PW3-Dr.Arun Kumar and PW4-Dr.Bandi Praveen. Assistant Manager of Oriental [nsurance Company was examined as RWl, examined Rw2-A.Abhilash (Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Jagitial) and got marked Exs.Rl-insurance policy and Ex. R2 -ext ract of d riving licence.

7. Tribunal after going through tJle evidence of the parties ald perusing the documents thereon has allowed the petition in part by awarding compensation of Rs.8,OO,611/- along with interest at the rate of 7o/o per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of payment and costs directing respondent Nos.l to 4 jointly and severally liable to pay the compensatiofl alnoufit \rithin 30 days from the date of the order i.e., dated OL.l2.2O2l and that the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount along with proportionate costs and interest. BRMR, J MACMA.No.588 of 2O22 I

8. lrarned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent Nos.1, 5 to 7 xe not necessary parties to the present appeal, which is recorded in the proceeding sheet dated 17.O7.2025.

9.1 Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the appellant as Rs.S,OOO/- who was III year B.Com Student which ought to have taken Rs. 10,O00/- per month, a,lso failed to grant expenses for removal of implants [future operation], which is Rs.5O,000/- as per the evidence of PW3 and also erred in not granting future loss of earning capacity.

9.2 The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.2O,OOO/- towards attending charges, Rs.50,O0O/- towards loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life instead thereof has awarded a meagre amount of Rs. 10,0O0/-. Further, interest to be granted at t}re rate of 9o/o per annum and prayed to enhance tJle claim, relied on the decision in the case of Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafrque Vs. Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Orsl.

10. lrarned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 submits that the Tribunal has properly assessed the income of the appellant and rightly awarded the amount, which requires no interference of this Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. '2025 |NSC 673 6/e \ BRMR, J MACMA.No.5a8 of 2022 1 1. l.earned counsel for t]re appellant has filed statement I showing the amount claimed and the amount awarded and further stated that the disability is not considered.

12. Heard learned counsel for tJle parties and perused the record,

13. Now the point for determination is: whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what amount?

14. Appellant has challenged the quantum, the amounts awarded under the different heads and also with regard to the interest portion. Hence this appeal is restricted to the above said point.

15. Appellant has not disputed the amount of Rs.3,23,61l/- granted towards medical expenses. Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 found that there would be an incremental increase in the income which according to us would be reasonable if fixed at Rs.500/- per month for every succeeding year. In t]re present case accident occurred on 14.11.2015. Going by the principles stated in the aforesaid decision, appellant being a B.Com III year student, who was attending agriculture and earning an amount of Rs. 10,O00/- which can be safely adopted in this case. ' 12orz1 t6 scc 680 i i I I I I I I 7le ARMR, J MACMA.No.588 of 2022 The same is followed in Shaikh Sadik Shaikh Rafique caser and added 4O7o future prospects.

16. As per the evidence of PW2 appellant was admitted in Deccan hospital at Hyderabad on 14.11.2015 for the sustained (1) crush injuries to right leg and (2) fracture Tibia and Fibula and the injuries are grievous in nature, the patient undergone surgery external hxation and wound debridment of (right) femur limb + primary closure + CRIF with rough nail for (right) fibula on

16. 11.2015 and was discharged on 19.11.2015. Appellant was again admitted oo 02.O2.2O 16 in the hospital, surgery was done on

04.O2.2016, he was discharged on O8.02.2016 and was advised for follow up treatment. 17 . The evidence of PW3 is that he has also treated the appellant at Deccan Hospital Hyderabad who has performed surgery of implart removal of (right) hbula under local anaesthesia with aseptic precaution. Since the date of accident [14.11.2O15] till the appellant was discharged from the Hospital on 08.02.2O16, he was under treatment for the past four months. Hence the loss of earning is for a period of four months only.

18. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.l5,0O0/- towards transportation-cfurrges, Rs.5,OOO/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 15,OO0/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 1O,0OO/- towards I I n I I i l 8le BRMR, J MACMA No saa of 2022 amenities. This Court feels that appellant is entitled for Rs.S,OOO/- more towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,O00/- more towards pain and suffering.

19. The computation of the compensation is as under: Amount awarded Name of the Head S1.No I | 1. I 2 3 4 I

5. 6 7 8 9

10. 11 Monthly income Rs.lO,OOO/- Add 4Oo/o future prospects (as per Pranay Sethi's case'z) Rs.14,0OO/- (40olo of 10,000) + t0,0OO Annual income Multiplier'18' (As per Smt.Sarla Varma Vs- Delhi Transport Corporation3 ) Disability 4O% Medicines Rs.1,68,OO0/' Rs.3O,24,OOO/- (14,0OO x 18) Rs.12,09,600/- (40% of 30,2a,000) Rs.3,23,611/- Tralsportation charges Rs.15,0OO/- Extra nourishme[t Pain arrd suffering Loss of amenities Rs.1O,OOO/- Rs.2O,OOO/- Rs.10,OOO/- Loss of earning power (for a period of four months) Total I Rs.40,OOO/- 4 x 10,00 Rs.16,28,211l- l l

20. Interest to be awarded at the rate of 97o per annum as per the decision of the Supreme Court in Adali and Others vs. l,okendra Rathod and ottrersa. -.-- r {2oo9) ACJ 1298 (SC) r 2022 SCC Online SC 1683 I I ! i BRMR, J MACMA. No.5a8 of 2022

21. - ln the result, MACMA.No.Sa8 of 2022 is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced as under: a) The impugned award dated 01.12.2021, passed in MVOP.No. 159 of 2O16, stands modilied. b) The compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.8,O0,61ll- is enhanced to Rs.16,28,211l- together with interest at the rate of 9o/o pr €ulnum from the date of fiiing the petition till payment. c) Appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amonnt with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security. d) The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. As a sequel miscellaneous application/applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs A R SD/- P.PON A KRIS ASSISTANT REGISTRA 6 //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER I to'r. tL ,n" Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - llAdditional District Judge' Karimnaqar at Jagtia ' , ffi.liiil'siii xi-l[oerp JADHAV Adv-ocate [oPUCl 3. One CC to SRl. v vtr'tdrffiiur-nEobi' Advocate [oPUc] 4. Two CD CoPies GE/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:01/08/2025 JUOGMENT MACMA.No.588 ol 2022 1HE Si4 \) !. B J e.tt 2 l * * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 6 1 b 1D \"v [ 3448 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY,THE FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO I MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 588 OF 2022 Between: Katla Mahipal, S/o. Devaiah, Aged 21 years, Munnurukapu, Occ Student and Agriculture, Rl/o. Aravelli Village of Pegadapally Mandal, Karimnagar District AND ,.APPELLANT/PETITIONER '1. Chetpally Ashok, S/o. Ramulu, ( Aged 29 years, Occ Driver of Crime Vehicle hearing Tractor and Trailor No AP-15-AG$41216413, Rl/o. Tarakaramanagar Village of Jagtial Mandal, Karimn.agar District.

2. Shivaratri Thirupathi, S/o. Chinna Rajam,(Died)

3. The Oriental lnsurance Co. Ltd, r/by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Bhiwandi,137, Sonawane Building, Above State Bank of lndia, Murbad Road, Kalyan (W), Thane, Maharashtra State-421 301. (vide Policy No. 13't501/31/2016/2554 Valid from 29-08-2015 to 28 08-2016)

4. Oriental lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Jagtial Village and Mandal, Karimnagar District,

5. Shivarathri Rajavva, Wo. Late Thirupathi, Age 35 years, Occ Labour,

6. Shivarathri Vamshi, S/o. Late Thirupathi. ( Age 19 years, Ooc Labour, 7. Shivarathri Varun, Sio. Late Thirupathi, Age 11 years, Occ Student, F/by his next friend, natural mother and guardian. Shivarathri Rajaw, All are R/o H.No. 12-6'l11 , Rajararn Village of Mallial Mandal, Karimnagar District. (Respondents No.5 to 7 are LRs of Respondent No.2 and brought on record as per orders in l.A No 1075 of 2016, ,ri:1*ffiirrrfi,rs/REspoNDENrs Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 01 12.202'l passed in MVOP No. 159 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtia. 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 SRl. KULDEEP JADHAV, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.1 & 2, 5 to 7 and SRl. V.VENKATA RAMI REDDY Advocate appeared for Respondent No.3 & 4. 1 This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: I . That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and is hereby partly Allowed.

2. That the compensation be and is hereby enhanced from Rs.8,00,611/- to Rs.16,28,211l- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition till payment.

3. That the Appellant be and is hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount with costs and interest thereon without furnishing security.

4. That the respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs less the amount already paid if any within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

5. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SO/. P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR llTrue Copyll G To SECTION OFFICER

1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - ll Additional District Judge, 2. fwo CD Copies. Karimnagar at Jagtia. GE/PSL 4Y HIGH COURT DATED:0'l/08/2025 DECREE MACMA.No.588 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t1 6