As per the authoritv in Sarla Verma v. Dethi Transport Corporationl, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied

Counsel for the Respondent No.3: SMT. Madhavi Priya Mantena Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 & 2: None Appeared The Court made the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA Y' RA M.A.C.M.A.N o.1459 0 F 2023 IUDGMENT:- This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petr : cner aggrieved by the order, dated 12.01.2023 passed in t"l V.O.P.No 53 of 2016 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims tibunal-cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein an amount of Rs.7,U,375l- is aw'r 'ded in a claim petition filed seeking Rs.10,00,000/- from the responcl' rnts jointly and severally by the appellant due to tf,e inlrries suffered I I him in a road traffic accident.

2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.11.201 ' at about 2:30 P.M. when the appellant was going as pillion rider on motorcycle bearing No.AP-21-AX-8581 from Shamshiguda to Hi-1 lch City, when the vehicle reached Chandana Brothers and was taki lg U turn, one lorry bearing No.AP-13X-5861 came in high speed :rd dashed the appellant motorcycle causing his fall and fracture o L4-Transverse processr blunt injury to abdomen, degloving injury to rbdomen, head injury and other blunt injuries all over the body. The p:lice registered a case in crime No.973 of 2015 and filed chargrl sheet against respondent No.2 who was driving the lorry. Responti lnt No.1 is the 7 owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the crime lorry. Due to the loss suffered on account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant preferred claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest.

4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.Al to A12. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and respondent No.3 though opposed the claim petition taking various deFences did not lead oral evidence but marked Ex.B1- certified true copy of insurancci policy. Upon examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,17,375/- with interest at 6010 per annum, leading to filing of the present appeal. In grounds of appeal, it is pleaded that the Tribunal failed to

5. consider the loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 15olo though the doctor, who is examined as P.W.2, has deposed that there is 50o/o disability. The appellant is a liFt mechanic and he cannot lift weights and cannot carry heavy work load, cannot sit or stand or walk normally. Further, he cannot stand for long periods. Therefore, the Tribunal, according to the appellant ought to have considered his disability at 50o/o of earning capacity. The appellant incurred an amount of Rs.BB,470l- towards medical bills but was granted only Rs.66,375/- final bill amount by not awarding pharmacy bills. There is no compensation awarded towards loss of earnings, transportation, 3 extra nourishment and damage to clothing. The Tribu ral also failed to award compensation towards loss of marriag l prospects at Rs. f,00,000/- and therefore the appellant sought enh: rcement

6. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel f rr the appellant contended that there is failure on the part of the Tritrr nal in awarding just compensation on counts of Ioss of earning r apacity due to disability, the pharmacy bills, loss of marriage f rospects/ extra nourishment, transportation and clothing.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/insurance ( lmpany argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just i nd fair and that the same may be confirmed. B. A perusal of the record shows that the Tribun: did not award compensation towards loss of income due to disability. There is a need to award compensation on said ground. On the basis ( f Ex.47-original salary certificate, the monthly income of the appell rnt rs taken at Rs.15,000/- per month. The age of the appellant wa:; 23 years at the time of accident and thereFore, the multiplier would be 1B'. As per the evidence of P.W.2, a member of Medical Board at (;andhi Hospital deposed that he treated the appellant after he sust: ned injuries in RTA that his final movements reduced between 0 to 1t 7o and that the patient was treated conservatively with LS belt with m( dication. PW.2 issued-disability certificate marked under Ex.46 which s 15% which is f,/ 4 partial and permanent in nature. The witness P.W'2 is not competent to depose about the loss of earning capacity and therefore, the Tribunal rightly discarded 50% loss of earning capacity as deposed by PW.2. There is disability for the appellant in sitting, squatting and walking apart from inability to lift heavy weights. ' As a lift mechanic, ability to sit, stand and lift heavy weights is required' However, it is possible that the appellant can rind some other avocation which does not require sitting, squatting or heavy work load. Hence, the functional disability is also taken.at 15%.

9. The Tribunal failed to add future prospects and therefore, there is a need to add future prospects at 4Oo/o. lf 4Oo/o of the income is included as future prospects, the annual income would be Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.1,BO,0O0/- + Rs.72,000/-)' As per the authoritv in Sarla Verma v. Dethi Transport Corporationl, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier of '18', the loss of future ear,nings of the appellant due to disability at l5o/o is RS.6,8O,4OO/- (Rs.2,52,O00/- x 18 x 15/100).

10. In addition, the appellant was awarded Rs.SO,OOO/- towards pain and suffering for grievous injury and the same need not be interfered with. The Tribunal awarded Rs.15,OOO/- for three simple injuries and the same also need not be interfered with. The Tribunal '1zoo91 e s.c.c. tzr awarded Rs.66,375/- instead of Rs.BB,470l- towarcs final bill as per Ex.A10. Therefore, the appellant is entiued o payment of Rs.88,47O/- by including pharmacy bills marke,j under Ex.A10. Lastly, the appellant is also entiiled to Rs.1O,OOO / - towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,OOO/- towards transportatior. Rs.2,OOO/_ towards damage to clothing and Rs.50,OOO/- t )wards loss of marriage prospects and mental agony. In he appellant is tota l, entitled to Rs,9,OO,8 7 O / - tow ards com pensation.

11. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. Tr l compensation awarded by the Tribunal is herpby enhanced from F s.7,17,375/- to Rs.9,00,870/- with interest @ 9% per annum o.r the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of ea lization. The enhanced compensation amount shall be deposited by, jointly and severally within a period of two months rl he respondents )m the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment. On such deposit, entitled to withdraw the entire amount as appr I Tribunal, without furnrshing any security. There shall tr he appellant is :ioned by the r no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this apf eal, shall stand closed. To, SDI. N. SRIHARI D: )UTY REGISTRAR I I //TRUE COPY// ;E6lor.r oFFlcER TheChairmanMotorAccldentClaimsTribunal.cum-llA.llitionalChiefJudge, City Civil Court, HYderabad

2. One CC to Sri. K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate [OPt C] J One CC to Smt Madhavi Priya Mantena' Advoca-tq Irl PUCI - "=r-i - -!.4ttfr'1? Tt^)o LD (-oPlcs N- HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.1459 of 2023 t2 DRryt ,i,6 *+"", rU s l.{ I /.r. jrC ii,-> < I ii Dr[ i0E ), .Q,: :]* PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. b 1b t0 134421 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY,THE TWENW FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1459 OF 2023 Between: G.Mahendra, S/o Thippanna, Aged 22 years, Occ. Mechanic, Presently Nil, R/o H-No.2-1-49lA, lndra Hills, Shamshiguda, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. ...Appella nt AND 1 2 J Shaik Zakir, S/o Siaik frrfoinrOOin, Aged Major, Occ. Owner of Lorry, R/o H- No.14-20-347, K.S.Nagar, Allapur, Borabanda, Hyderabad 501141 . Shaik Akber, S/o Sk.Muneer, Aged Major, Occ. Driver, R/o H-No.8-4-649/2, Sultan Bazar, Erragadda, Hyderabad-500018. L Bajaj Allianz General lnsurance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager,4th Floor, North East Plaza, Opp. RTA Office, Erramanjil X Roads, Hyderabad. 500082. ...Respondents Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Judgment and Decree passed in M.V.O.P.No.153/2016, dated 12.01.2023, on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Il Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. K. Harimohan Reddy, Advocate for the Appellant and of the Respondent No. 3 Advocate Smt. Madhavi Priya Mantena, and of the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 none appeared either in person or by Advocate. This Court both Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident civil Miscellaneous Appear be and hereby is parfly Allowed; 7

2. That the Compensation amount awarded by the Tribur al is hereby enhanced from Rs.7,17,3751 to Rs 9,00,8701 with interest @ 9cl p.a. on the enhanced compensation from the date of Claim Petition till the dat r of realization,

3. That the enhanced compensation amount shall t: deposited by the respondents Jointly and Severally within a period of tw: months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment; 4 That on such deposit, the Appellants is entitled to with,j aw the entire amount as apportioned by the Tribunal, without furnishing any se :urity;

5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal sh,t I stands confirmed in all other respects; and

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// SD/- N. SRIHARI \ TI:PUTY REGISTRAR , SECTION OFFICER The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum.'lt A,l litional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Two CD Copies AT ) To, 1 2 AS/gh HIGH COURT DATED:2410712025 DECREE MACMA.No.1459 ot 2023 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS. q r0