The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. NANDANA SARMA pVB rep SRI. AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GONDALA PRAKASH Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Ms. T.pADMAJA, Advocate rep SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT ./. 'rf T]IE IION'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1864 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: Heard Ms. llandana Sarma PVB, learned counsel representing Sri Akkam lDshrvar, learned counsel for the appellant, liri Gondala Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - owner of the offending vehicle and M s. T. Padmaja, learned counsel representing Sri Harinath Reckl1 Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 Insurance ConLpary. Perused the entire record

2. This ap rea I 1S preferred by the appellant/ clairnant being aggrieved bl the au,ard dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Clz ims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) at Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), in O.P.No.177 of 2OO8

3. The clarrn petition i.e. O.P.No.l77 of 2008 arose following the road accident ru"hi:h occurred on 23.1O.2OO7 at about lO arn 'a,hen the appellant u.as travelling aiong with others in an auto bear:ing No.AP- 01-V-0805 anrl the said auto was struck in opposite direction by another auto lrear.ng No.AP O1 V 5418. Following the said accident, the appellant. ;uf1i:red injuries to left leg, left hand, teetLr and head and she unde nvt:nt guillotine amputation during treatrr ent. Thus, \ i.' l ,,. 2 claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- from respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. Upon examining the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal answered issue of rash and negligent driving of offending auto in favour of the appellant and against respondents. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,57,500/- with interest at 6Vo per annum from the date of petition till the date of reallr;ation. Respondent No.2 was directed to pay the compensation to the appellant and then recover from the insured respondent No.1 on the basis of plea of respondent No.2 that the driver of the offending auto was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and also non-production of driving licence by insured respondent No. 1.

5. There is no dispute about the manner of accident, injuries/ disability suffered by the appeilant and also liability of the respondents.

6. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,OOO/- per annum and percentage of disability as per Workmen's Compensation Act at SOok for below knee amputation. Considering her age as 14 years, the Tribunal has adopted multiplier '1 S' and granted an amount of Rs. 1,12,500/- (Rs. 15,oo0 x 50/ 100 x t5) under the head of disability.

3. ,.&- J':, 3 Further, the 'l'ribtrnal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,(.)00/- under the head of iniun,, shock, pain and suffering and Rs.20,(.)00/- under other heads srrch as medical expenses, transport, extra nrrurishment, attendant exl)enses, etc. Thus, awarded total compr:nsation of Rs. i,57,500/ u. th interest @ 6ok per annum. Aggrieved t;y the same, the present appr:al is preferred seeking just compensal.ion on the premise that the rrotional income and the expenses au,arded are too 1ow. 7 . During lppt:ai, learned counsel for the appellan t referred to judgments o1- the I{on'ble Supreme Court in Master Ayush v. Branch Manager, Rel:iance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and anotherr and Rushi v. Ori,:ntaLl Insurance Co. Ltd.2 for the guide lines to be followed while granting compensation in injury cases. Lastly, the learned couns:1 frr the appeilant referred to judgment of the Honble Supreme Courl ir Kajal v. Jagdish Chand3 for grant of co mpensation in cases of the claims involving disability.

8. The accilerl occurred way back in the year 2007 rmd at that time, the app,:llarLt herein was aged about 14 years. The notional income of the year 2O2O is not comparabie to the notional income of in ttre- ygar 2007, However, the fact remains that the appellant was '1zozz1 t scc t* '1zozs; r scc o:s '1zozo; a scc ata l:l 4 deprived of the compensation for more than 15 years after occurrence of the accident. It is also to be noted that the appellant who was a young girl aged 14 years underwent below knee amputation, which would be a permanent disability. The Tribunal computed the compensation for disability alone and ignored to consider the future prospects, loss of amenities and future medical expenses.

9. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment (3 supra) involving the accident of the year 2OO7 to a 72 years girl, ',r,ho had sustained 1OO% disability, found that the notional income taken at Rs.15,O00/ per annum is not at all justihed and considered Rs.4,846/- per month as per the minimum wages payable to a skilled workmal. Further in the aforesaid judgments (1 and 2 supra), involving accidents that took place in the year 2O1O and 2Ol3 to children of below 12 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered their monthly income at Rs.3,7O0/- and Rs.5,250/ respectively. Hence, the notional income arrived at Rs. 15,00O/- per . annum by the Tribunal is on lower side, which the appellalt would have earned on becoming a major. Hence, this Court is inclined to take the daily wage of the appellant at Rs. 1OO/- per day, which amounts to Rs.3,000/- per month. .drr- ,1 5 iO. Having r:gard to the age ald income of appellalt as determined above, if 4O pe rcent of the income is included as future prospects as per law laid rlcwn n National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethia, the monthly lncorne u,ould be Rs.4,2OO/ i.e. Rs.50,4O0/- uer annum. Applying the r ulticlier of '15' and disability at 5Oo/o, the lor;s of future earnings due ro pr:rmanent disability to iife would be Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.50,4O0 x 1,i x i;0/ 100). 1 1. The Tribrrnal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/ under the head of injury, sho:[, Orit and suffering ald the same is enhanced to Rs.2,O0,000/ Frrrther, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under other heads such zLs medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment, attendant exlr€ nser;, etc. and this Court is not inclined r.o interfere with the said fi rdiog.

12. In the ar.ar,1 passed way back in the year 201.5, the Tribunal has not aq,ardcd iimount towards loss of amenities, loss c,f marriage prospects and fut,rre medical treatment and the altpell ant whose claim is pendir.g s;ince the year 2Ol9 before this Court is entitled to payment of the sarr: e.

13. On the l,asis of the citations (supra 1 to 3) referred by the learned cotrnse fo;- the appellant, the appellant is as.ardecl t1n aanount o zorz 101 rzo 1sc1 .1 a I 6 (" of Rs.3,O0,00O/- each towards loss of amenities, ioss of marriage prospects and recurring expenses for purchase of prosthetic limb.

14. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to Rs. 14,98,OO0/- instead of Rs.1,57,5OO/- as was awarded by the Tribunal.

15. As far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted interest @ 6oh per annum for which this Court is inclined to interfere with the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Rajesh and -others v. Rajbir Singh and otherss, and hereby increases the interest granted by the Tribunal from 60/o per annum to 7 .Soh per annum.

16. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,57,5OO/- to Rs.14,98,OO0/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5V, per annum. The compensation amount shall be deposited by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and shall recover the same from the Insured/respondent No.1. On such deposit, as the appellant had attained majority, she is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. However, the appellant sha11 pay the defrcit s 2Ol3 ACJ FIOSr: 2O13 (4) ALT 35 ,' ry,?fgrti"7 '.., ,f i 7 court fee on th: enharced compensation. There shali be no order as to costs. Miscellzrr eous Petitions, if any, pending in this a1.,peal, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/-MOHD. ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I I ECTION OFFICER Judge, at Nizamabad.(With Records)

1. The chairrnan. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Addrtional District 2. One CC to SFl. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC kr SR . HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Advocate IOPUC] 4, One CC to SR . GONDALA PRAKASH, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD C opies To RP {:t:',, -f rx$ :-::: "-:*, -L!!!t!P}'.,|r. . '.;.1 r-,1 -i a HIGH COURT DATED: 14rt971292, JUDGMEN T {' .: MACMA.No.1864 of 2019 i i;. S iAr€ ,1. , ). ,i '\'/' fi2 rPl zffi z o -5 . i ., n. rC!l': ALLOWING THE MACMA I ."] t IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE RENUKA YARA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1864 OF 2019 Between: J. Annapoorna, D/o. Kishtaiah, Aged.20 years, Occ. Student, R/o. Kanteshwar, Nizamabad. ...APPELLANT/CLAIMANT AND (. -'p 'l- K. Sayanna, S/o. Ramulu, Aged- Major, Occ: Owner of the Auto bearing No. AP01V 5418 R/o. H.NO 3-'18, Borigaon (V) Mudhole (M), Adilabad District. 2. lClCl Lombard General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Door No.6-3-362/'1, 3'd Floor, Osman Plaza, Road.'No.1, Banjara . Hills, Opp: SBH Bank Hyderabad ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under Section 1 73 of Motor vehicles Act., against the Judgment and decree, made in O O.P.No.177 of 2008 dated. 03.07.2015 on the file of the chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Additional District Judge, at N izamabad. 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 Ms. Nandana Sarma PVB rep SRI. AKKAM ESHWAR, Advocate for the appellant and of SRI GONDALA PRAKASH, Counsel for the Respondent No.1 and Ms. T.PADMAJA, Advocate represented SRI HARINATH REDDY SOMA, Counsel forthe Respondent No.2. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby is allowed; 2. That the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,57,500/. to Rs.14,98,0001 which shall carry interest atthe rate of 7.5-% perannum; t- F-'*-7 l

3. That the r;ompensation amount shall be deposited by resporrdent No.2 within a period cf twc months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and shall reco rer the same from the insured/respondent No.1 ;

4. That on s rch deposit, as the appellant had attained majority, she is entitled to withdraw the scme without furnishing any security;

5. However. that the appellant shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compenszrtion;

6. That sav€ as rrforesaid, the decree of the Tribunal shall sta nds confirmed in all other respe,:ts; and

7. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. //TRUE COPY// Sd/.MOHD, ISMAIL ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

1. The chainnan, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Vlll Additional District 2. Two CD C opies Judge, at Nizamabad. 9EcTtON OFFTCER To PR 1 HIGH COURT DATED: 1t110212025 DECREE MACMA.N,o.1864 of 2019 ALLOWING THE MACMA L