G.Nagaraju v. 1. Boini Shiva Kumar

Counsel for the Appellant: SRt. K.Harimohan Reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri C. Buchi Reddy Counsel forthe Responent No.1: None appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 137O OF 2o23 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned counsel fi:r respondent- Insurance Compaly. Perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petidoner aggrieved by the order, dated 16.O2.2O23, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1670 of 2018 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribrrnal-cum-XXVl Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, . Hyderabad (for short, Tribunal).

3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of R.s.65,5O,OOO/- from the respondents jointly and severally as he met with an accident on 25.06.2018 and sustained gr:ievous injuries. The appellant is the owner cum driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37V 5241 and had income of Rs.3O,OOO/- per month. On 25.O6.2018 at 9:OO P.M., when the appellant was going on his bike bearing No.AP O7 AD 3148 from Nagole to RK Nagar and when the motorcycle reached near Bandlaguda bus stop, one lorry bearing No.TS O8 UB 2954 came wrtng side in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent I i I i 2 manner and dashed the bike, as a result, the appellant sustained fracture of left shoulder, digloved with bronchial plexus injury, compartment syndrome of left upper limb, injury to chest, left bronchial artery injury, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. Due to said accident and injuries sustained, the appellant sought compensation by examining P.Ws. 1 to 6 and got marked Exs.Al to A12. Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness but got marked insurance policy as Ex.Bl. Upon examining the oral and documentaqr evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,85,211l- as against the claim of Rs.65,5O,OOO/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

4. In grounds of appeal, it is contended that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.3O,OOO/- as lorry driver but the Tribunal has erroneously taken as Rs. 15,000/- per month. Further, tJle appellant sustained three grievous injuries and disability certificate is issued. The Tribunal has taken the percentage of disability as 40%. The appellant sought Rs. 1,80,OOO/- towards loss of income during the treatment period and Rs.2,5O,OOO/- towards loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony. On the basis of the a-forementioned grounds, the appellant sought enhancement of compensation. I I I I 3

5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the left hand of ttre appellant is paralysed and the said hand cannot be used to do any work and therefore, t.Le functional disability has to be taken at 1OO% being a lorry driver. Further, learned counsel for the appellant insisted that as a lorry driver, the income of the appellant has to be taken as Rs.3O,OOO/ - per month but meager amount of Rs. 15,OOO/- per month is taken by the tribunal.

6. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that 1OO% disability can be that of left hand but not the r-.ntire body and therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

7. l,earned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Vasanthi and another a. Adhipara.sakthi. Engineering College and anotherl wherein the income of a 23 year old quali-fied engineer who was pursuing MBA degree was taken at Rs.3O,OOO/- per month. This case is clearly not applicable to the facts of the present case as there is rro information available about education ofthe appellant except for the fact that he is claiming to be a lorry driver. The income of a lorry drivrrr would be far dilferent from the income of a qualified engineer I) ursuing MBA. Further, learned counsel for the appellant referred to a common lzoz;)rs scc :ro \ { i 4 ,\. judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MACMA Nos. 1651 and 1482 of 2O16 dated 2I.O2.2O24, wherein the income of an owner cum lorry driver is taken at Rs. 18,0O0/- per month by taking the notional income as Rs.6O0/- per day. The entire case record shows that the appellant is a driver. As per common judgment of the Division Bench of this Court (referred supra), Rs. 18,OOO/- incorne is taken when the injured was owner cum driver. In the instant case, there is no proof about the appellant being owner cum driver of vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal taking the notional income at Rs. 15,OOO/- per month as a driver but not owner seems appropriate and ,therefore, need not be interfered with. However, the percentage of disability on account of the inability of the appellant to be a driver forever in future requires that the functiona.l disability be taken at 1O0%. More particularly, the oral evidence of P.W.4-Dr.Vivek Reddy shows that the appellant cannot drive any vehicle due to disability on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the accident. To the said extent the order passed by the tribunal needs to be modifred. There are four grievous injuries and therefore, grant of Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable and need not be interfered with. Further, the grant of medical bills and pharmacy bills of Rs.3,80,0OO/- is appropriate. To sum up, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation by taking the percentage of disability as 1OO%. / / 5 /

8. To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to disability, as per age and income of the claimant, if 25% of the income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in No:tlonal Insurance Compang Ltd a. Pranag Sethi and other*, tJle annual income would be Rs.2,25,OOO/- (Rs.f ,80,OOO/- + 45,0OO/-). As per the authority in Scrlc Venna u. Delhi Transport Corporation3, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier of '14', the loss of future earnings of the appellant due to disability at lOO% is Rs.31,50,OOO/- (Rs.2,25,0OO/- x 14 x 1OO/ 1OO). \

9. In addition, the appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,OO,0()0/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,0O,OOO/- towards future medical expenses, Rs. 1,OO,OOO/- towards loss of amenities, Rs. 1O,O0O/- towards transportation, Rs.25,OOO/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.3,8O,OOO/- towards medical and pharmacy bills. There is no proof about pa5rment made on attendant and therefore, no compensation is awarded towards attendant charges. In total, the appellzrnt is entitled to Rs.4O,65,OO0/-. lO. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from 'zotz (o) rzo {sc) '1zoos1o s.c.c. tzt I 6 Rs.20,85,211l- to Rs.4O,65,OO0/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents joinfly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if uoy, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. SD/. N. SRIHARI DEPUW REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, '1. the chairman, Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- XXV| Addr chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. (With records, if any)

2. One CC to SRl. K. Harimohan Reddy Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SR|.C. Buchi Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies KHigh M/ __.==-.-..--=--. HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 IE1 ( C) 1/ 0[I zffi z JUDGMENT+OECREEi MACMA.No.l37O of 2023 12 * PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. %^r 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT clvlL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1370 OF 2023 Between: G.Nagaraju, S/o G.llaiah Aged 42 years Occ. Driver, Presently nil, R/o H- No.3-1-387, Barath Nagar, L.B.Nagar Hyderabad-500074. ...Appellant AND

3. Boini Shiva Kumar, S/o Sri Ramulu No.6-6, Saddupally, Tharamathipet Telangana-501505. Aged Major Occ. Owner cum driver R/o.H- Hayath Nagar Mandal, R.R.Dist,

4. Sri Ram General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Manager, 3-6-517, Ftat No. 401-403, 4th Floor, Sai Dafta Arcade, Street Number 6, Sai Vihar, Himayatnagar, Hyderabad, Telangana 500029. ...Respondents Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No. 1670 of 2018 dated.16tO2l2O23 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad. 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 arguments of SRl. K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant andof Sri C. Buchi Reddy, Advgcate forthe Respondent No.2 and none appeared for the respondent no.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be and hereby is partly allowed;

2. That one compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.20,85,2111- lo Rs.40,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization;

3. That one enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment;

4. On such deposit that the appellant be and hereby entitled to withdraw the entire amount, wihtout furnishing any seqrity;

5. That save as aforesaid, the Judgment and decree of the'fribunal shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// t-\\ l\ SD/- N..SRIHARI I]UTY REGISTRAR I-lECTION OFFICER To, 't. the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- XXVI Addl Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad.

2. Two CD Copies W KH/gh HIGH COURT DATED:031O712025 DEGREE MACMA.No.1370 ot 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. %-'o