NBK, J Insurance Company Ltd v. Pranay Serlir. So, the income of the claimant would be Rs

Counsel for the Appellan : SRl. ANNAPURNA SREERAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : - Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI N. MOHAN KRISHNA The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ] 1 macma_646 2019 N8K, J THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHI'I MAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No. 646 of 2019 JUDGMENT: 'I'he appellant/inj ured-clairnant tjled this appeal. b,ci ,g dissatisllcd rvith the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairm r r. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for trial olS(' /STs (POA) Cases- cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in M.V.O.P. N r 104 of 201 l, dated 06.09.2013. By the impugned Order, the 'l'ribunal awarclct I compensation of Rs.5,02,000, with proportionate costs, and interest at 9oi 1er annum fiorn the date of petition till the date of actual payment. 'I he r bunal dir.ected the respondent No.2-Reliance General Insurance Compan, Ltd., to pay the compensation within two months from the date of the imp,r lned Order. .l

2. Heard Ms. S. Annapurna, learned counsel lor the app :llant/c lairnant; and leamed Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-insuranr ) cotnpany. Perused the record. For the sake of convenience, the parties wilt he cferred as Claimant and insurance company.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.02.2011, rLr about 7 P.M., the Claimant, along with his friend M. Venkataiah, was procec( ng to K. Matlepalty village on Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-AH - t272.The petitioner was the rider and his friend was pillion riding. When they :acl.red the outskirts of Rangareddy gudem, at about 9 P.M., a Logan Car bei -ing No.AP-28-AZ- 9631, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, c i shed the motorcycle ofthe petitioner. The petitioner and his friend felt down a r I sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner was administered first aid and ur; shifted to Kamala Hospital for treatment, where he underwent surgery an J was discharged on : r! i. I 2 macma_646_2019 NBK, J

15.02.201I . Thereafter, he took further treatment at Thirumala Multi Speciality Hospital, Hyderabad, under Dr. Ramesh Kumar and Dr. Shivaram Naik, and was discharged on 28.02.201 l; however, he continued treatment for some time.

3.1 He filed a Claim petition seeking a compensation of Rs.7,00,000 for the injuries, loss ol earnings, tuture eaming capacity, due to permanent disability of 50% as assessed by PW-3 (Civil Surgeon of District Headquarters Hospital, and Medical Board member). T'he Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.5,02,000; hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel tbr the claiurant contends that the Tribunal erred in not awarding the entire compensation ol Rs.7,00,000, and also did not take into account the perrnanent disabitity suf'fered by the Claimant, and also not awardcd amounts towards attendant chargcs, and extra nourishment. Further, the Tribunal considered only Rs. I ,50,000 towards medical expenditure instead of the medical bills of Rs.3,00,000, and therefore prays to enhance the compensation.

5. Leamed Standing Counsel, on the contrary, contends that the Tribunal had rightly assessed the compensation; that there is no evidence that there was any loss of eaming capacity despite the assessed permanent disabiliry al 5O%o. Leamed Standing Counsel therelore contends that there is no merit inthe appeal.

6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it is to be noted that the occulrence of accident on 05.02.2011 between the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing No.AP-24-AH -9272 (ridden by the petitioner), and the Logan Car bearing No.AP-28-AZ-963 l, and the petitioner suffering injuries in the accident, are not in dispute. Ex.Al is the FIR, and Ex.A-2 is the charge sheet filed by the Police. The finding ofthe Tribunal with regard to the rash and negligent driving ofthe offending Car is also not in dispute. /: ./ .#aEF i-"qE'f r' { 3 macma 646_2019 N8K, J

6.1 With regard to the income of the Clairnant, ther',r s no incolne prooi for the claimant; however, the Tribunal assessed the inco r c al Rs.5,000 per month. The same, in the opinion of this Court, does not warr nt interference.

6.2 PW-3, who is a Civil Surgeon of District I ler r cluartcrs Hospital, and Medical Board member, assessed the permanent disabil v ol the Claimant at50%ovideEx.A-l0.AsrighttyobservedbytheTribunal,th rnedicalauthority can only assess the nature of the disability and its permanen i or othcrwise, and it is for the Tribunal/Court to assess the functional disabili . leading lo loss ol' eaming capacity, by considering various factors like occ rpation. extent of' physical labour involved in performing the duties relatetl t , such occupation, and whcther the disabitity affects the eaming capacity in st r ,: rr ar'.

6.3 ln the instant case, admittedty, the disability '1' the Claimant as assessed by PW-3 claimant at 50% due to shortening of rigl leg by 6 inches is not in dispute. Though the claimant is allegedly working as rr 'lerk in a chit funcl company, and his rvork may or may not involve intenst rhysical labour, it cannot be said that the shortening of leg by 6 inches doe: rot any impact his functioning and there can be no loss of eaming capaclt; rt all, as his free movement and walking ability suffers to some extent du: to disparity in the length of the legs. Atthe same time, it also cannot be said tha he cannot perfornr his clerical job at all in his company due to the disability. - is inclined to assess the functional disability at 25%o, th: rgh the pemanent rerefore, this Court disabilify is assessed at 5Oo/o.

6.4 The claimant was 26 years old by the date o1';r, cident. His income was assessed by the Tribunal as Rs.5,000 per month. The li .ure prospects for a 26 y ears old, self--employed person, can be taken at .1 ) 6 as pcr National t \ i 4 macma_646_2019 NBK, J Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Serlir. So, the income of the claimant would be Rs.5,000 x 40% of Rs.5,000: Rs.7.000.

6.5 Assessing the functional disability aL 25o/o disability, the loss of eamings would be Rs.1,750 per month (i.e.,25yo o1Rs.7,000), which comes to Rs.21,000 per year. As per Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the multiplier applicable for age 26 is " 17". So, the loss of future earnings due to the disability would be Rs.3,57,000 (i.e., Rs.2l ,000 x l7).

6.6 The claimant suffered rhe accident on 05.02.201 I, and underwent surgery in Kamala Hospital, Hyderabad, and discharged on I 5.02.201 I , and again he took treatment in Tirumala Multi Speciality tlospital, Hyderabad, and discharged on 28.02.201l. So, he was out olenrployment for a rnonth; however, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.I5,000 towards loss of earnings during treatment, which is equivalent to three months' salary, apparently on account of pain and suffering he had undergone for 90 days, as observed under the Head "pain and suffering". This Court is not inclined to interlere with the same.

6.7 The medical bills issued by Kamala Hospital under Ex.A-8 for Rs.1,34,855 towards treatment and pharmacy were considered by the Tribunal and awarded Rs.1,50,000 towards medical expenses. The contention of the claimant that he again availed trearrnent, billed at Rs.1,50,000 from Tirumala Multi Speciality Hospital, as claimed under Ex.A-9-bill, has been found improbable and also suspicious by the Tribunal as no Doctor/competent authority of the Tirumala Hospital has been examined by the claimant. The initial treatment availed by the Claimant at Kamala Hospital, involving surgery and pharmacy charges amounting to Rs. 1,34,855 (rounded off to Rs.1,50,000 by , lzorz;te scc sao (2M9) 6 scc 121 'z 5 macma 646_2019 NBK, ] the Tribunal) have been awarded by the Tribunal, as tl rt claim has been supported by the evidence of Dr. K. Shivaram Naik, Ort'r ,pedic Surgeon, ol -he othel bills ol Kamala Hospital, through an Advocate Commissioner'. Rs.1,50.000 attegedly lor the treatment by Tirumala Mult ipeciality Hospital has not been supported bv any evidence except for the med i : lbills untler Ex.A9 produced by the claimant purportedly issued by the Tirunrr I r Hospital. Further, the Tribunal observed that the Bitls did not contain the sigr rture of the Doctor or the competent authority of the Hospital. Nothing preve r red the claimant to examine the Doctor'competent authority of the Tirunt:r r itvlulti Specialitl Hospital to depose about E,x.A-9, if the claimant had avail,:, trcatment of equal expense and magnitude, amounting to Rs.1,50,000, at TilLrr,; r[a Multi Specialitl Hospitals as rvell. In the absence of reliable supporting evit :nce lor the alleeed treatment availed at 'firurnala Multi Speciality Hosp .al, amor.rnting to Rs.1,50,000, the view taken by the Tribunal in disall: iing the claim o1' Rs. I ,50,000 under E,x.A,9, and awarding Rs. 1,50,000 tow.u ( i medical treatment availed at Kamala Hospital underEx.A-8 (by upward rounrl rg off the bill under Ex.A-8 to Rs.1,50,000), does not require interference.

6.E The Tribunal awarded Rs.27,000 towards pairr rnd suflering for 90 days (three months), and the same does not require any inr, rl'erence. Likewise, the amount awarded towards attendant and transport ch: .ges (Rs. 10,000) is reasonable and does not require interference.

6.9 The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,0(, t00 towards loss of comfort, by observing that the claimant would feel dis:,rnfirrt in sitting or walking due to disability / shortening of leg; hor,, ver. the Tribunal simultaneously awarded Rs.1,00,000 towards loss of .rr:nitics of life. The discomfort in sitting/restriction in movement caused by di ability rnight afrect future eamin!gotential to some extent, however, the Tr tunal obseruing that \ \ ti. l. r t I 6 macma_646_2019 N8K, J there is no loss of eaming capacity, while simultaneously awarding Rs.2,00,000 towards loss of comfort is not based on sound reasoning. There is no legal precedent referred by the Tribunal supporting awarding of amount towards discomfort in sitting, while observing no loss of income on account of such discontfort. Therefore, the reasoning of the l-ribunal in awarding Rs.2,00,000 towards loss of comfort due to shortening of leg, by simultaneously awarding Rs. 1,00,000 towards loss of amenities of life, and also simultaneously observing that there is no loss of eaming capacity is not cogent. 'fherelore, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under these Heads are required to be appropriately re- assessed as per the law laid down in Pranay Serhi (supra), under the Head,.loss of future earnings due to the disability". That being saicl, considering the permanent disability at 50Yo as per Ex.A- 10, and the funcrional disability assessed by this court in this appeal at 25%o, this court is inclined to enhance the amount awarded towards loss of amenities of life, to Rs.1,50,000. I In view of the foregoing, the compensation awarded to the claimant is

7. appropriately enhanced / modified as follows: Rs. 15,000 i) Loss of eamings during treatment - ii) Loss of future eamings due to disability - Rs.3,57,000 iii) Medicai expendihrre - iv) Pain and suffering - v) Transportation / attendant charges - - vi) Loss of amenities of life Rs.1,50,000 Rs.1,50,000 Rs.27,000 Rs.10,000 Total Rs.7,09,000 I *:i.' 7 macma 646_2019 NBK, J

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Nagappa vs. Gurtt eyal3 held that the Courts/Tribunals have to award just and leasonable comper;ation based on the facts of the case. Accordingly, considering the judgment t Nagappa (supra), the cornpensation of Rs.7,09,000 is awarded to the claimarl

9. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, by enhancing t Rs.7,09,000. However, the interest of 9% is reduced to 60% I from the date of clairn petition to the date of actual paynr e compensation to 'r annum unitbrmly nt, considering the rationale in Sarla Verma (supra). The respondent No.2-insrLr rnce company shall pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant, within a p :riod of tu'o weeks from the date olreceipt of a copy of this order. The amourr ; already paid shall be taken into account while paying the enhanced compens: ion. Misccllaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- \. JAWAHAR REDDY ASr; STANT REGISTRAB-- - //TRUE COPY// \ SECTION OFFICER To, tvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal -cum rr cial Sessions Judge Ts (POA) Cases-cum-Additional Distrirl Judge, Nalgonda ANNAPU RNA SREERAM Advocate [() 'UC] N IVOHAN KRISHNA Advocate [OPU(]

1. The Chairman, for trial of SCs/S 2 One CC to IvlS. 3. One CC to SRl. 4. Two CD CoPies GE/SA a I -,'-: iA'i I t t"B lu[ i? l,l HIGH COURT DATED:2O1O3t2025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.646 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS t? 3L IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD [ 3300 ] THURSDAY,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 646 OF 2019 Between: Mallikanti Venkataiah Sio. Buchaiah, aged 29 years, R/o. G Annaram Village, Presently residing at Ramagiri locality of Nalgonda Town and Mandal & District. AND ...PETITIONER

1. [vl/s. Navayuga lnfotech Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its P. Uma Maheshwara Rao, aged Major, Occ. Business, R/o. Plot No.1, Whit Fields, Kondapur, Ranga Reddy District, Pin Code No.500037. (Owner of the Logan Car bearing No.A.P./28-42-9631) 2 The Reliance General lnsurance Company Ltd., rep. by its Manager in Legal, Branch Office, R/o. Sagar Plaza,lV Floor, Abids, Hyderabad. (Police No.'1802702311000674, valid from 19.06.2010 to .t8.06.2011 Branch Office, Vizag) issued by ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act, against Order and Decree dated 06.09.20 13 passed in I\/.V,O.P.No.3O4 ot 201'1 on the file of the court of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. 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 tVlS. S. ANNAPURNA, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for Respondent No.l and SRI N. MOHAN KRISHNA, Advocate appeared for Respondent No. 2- This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the Motor Accident Civil fvliscellaneous Appe I be and is hereby allowed.

2. That the compensation amount be and is hereby enhar r :d to Rs.7,09,0001. 3. That the interest of 9% be and is hereby reduced to 6 i per annum uniformly from the date of claim petition to the date of actual pa) nent, considering the rationale in Sarla Verma (supra).

4. That the respondent No.2-insurance company shzl pay the enhanced compensation to the claimant, within a period of two tv reks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5- That the amounts already paid shall be taken into acl runt while paying the enhanced compensation.

6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal Itf rue CoPYll SD/.. lJ JAWAHAR REDDY AS:i JTANT REGISTRAR /*\ /rl' \ \ \ i $ECTTON OFFTCER To .\, '1 . The Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-$p for trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional Distric tJ ral Sessions Judge udge, Nalgonda.

2. Two CD Copies GE/SA % / HIGH COURT DATED:2O1O312025 DECREE MACMA.No.646 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS o\ Lt \