The High Court · 2025

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2: Smt. I MAAMU VANI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : None Appeared The Court delivered the following: JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1654 of 2Ol9 JUDGMENT: Heard Sri Kasireddy Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Smt. Mammu Vani, learned counsel for respondent No.l i and perused the record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner seeking just compensation, aggrieved by the order, dated 09.01.2013, passed in M.V.O.P.No.6 of 2Oll by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein, a claim petition filed by the appellalt seeking compensation of Rs.35,OO,O0O/- followed by the injuries sustained by her in a road traffic accident was allowed in part, granting compensation of Rs.31,5O,OOO/ with interest Qi 6'k per annum.

3. The appellant filed the claim petition due to the injuries sustained by her in an accident that took place on 04. lO.2010 at 7.OO A.M. when she was proceeding on Aviator Activa Bike bearing registration No.AP 29 BE 2948 near Mettuguda X roads and a lorry bearing No.AP 16U 7259 wlricll came from back side had hit her bike. The appellant who was riding the bike and the pillion rider fell down and both of therrL sustained injuries. The appellant sustained multiple 2 injuries, i.e. crush injury on left leg, fracture of left leg, head injury, grievous injury to both hands, laceration and abrasions on forehead and spinal cord fracture. The occurrence of accident and the liability of the respondents to pay compensation are not in dispute. The appellant is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded, more particularly, the case of the appellant is that the Tribunal ought to have taken the annual income as Rs.5,23,679/- instead of Rs.33,055/- per month. It is further case of the appellant that the loss of earnings ought to have taken as 1007o as she was removed from service followed by amputation of her leg above knee- The Tribunal has taken the functional disability at 4Ook when Ex.All- disability certificate clearly mentions that the disability sustained by the appellant is 6O%. On said grounds, the appellant prayed that the compensation be enhanced to just and reasonable amount.

4. A perusal of the record shows that the appeliant has examined P.W.4 - H.R. Manager of the company to prove her income. The evidence of P.W.4 is that the appellant was drawing Rs.36,O88/- per month as per Ex.Al5-pay slip issued by the institution. Ex.A14- promotion letter shows salary hike from Rs.3,30,360/- to Rs,5,23,61O/-. P.W.4 is not the person who issued Ex.A l4-promotion letter. In case the appellant was drawing income of Rs.5,23,61O/- per annum, her monthly salar5i would have been Rs.43,634/-. There is I I 3 discrepancy between the annual income claimed by the appellant as per Ex.Al4 when compared to Ex.A15 pay slips, whieh show the gross monthly salary at Rs.36,0gg/-. The Tribuna-r ought to have considered the gross monthly salaqr for computing the compensation, but not the net monthiy salar5r at Rs.33,29g/_. To this extent there is a need to modilz the compensation awarded, by taking the saiary of the appellant at Rs.36,O8g/-, rounded offto Rs.36,O00/_.

5. Coming to the aspect of percentage of disability, the appellant ciaims that she has suffered loss of income at IOOVo on account of removal from service. However, as held by the Tribuna_l. there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was removed from service; rather she herself left the job accord.ing to the oral evidence of P-w-4 who is an H.R. Manager of institution. There is no evidence to show that the institution-ADp private Limited removed the apperlant from service. Therefore, there can be no inference about 1O07o loss of lncome.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon judgment of the Honble Apex court in Rahul Ganpatrao sabre v. Laxman Maruti Jadhav (Dead| through L.Rs. and othersl, wherein, the loss of income was taken at ) OOo/o, even though physical disability suffered was 6O%o. Learned counsel also relied on the judgment of the Hon,ble ' zoz:1+1 aro tss 1sc1 I -----7, 4 Apex Court in Jakil Husseia v. Sablr and others2, wherein, the loss of earnings was taken at IOO%o, though the disability suffered was 55%. Learned counsel further relied on the judgment of the Honble Apex court in S.srinivas v. Nageshwar Rao and another3, wherein, though the claimants suffered 50% disability, functional disabilit5z was taken at TOVo. Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in SanJay Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and another a, wherein, the functional disability was taken at Z OVo for permanent partial disability for a person who suffered above knee amputation. In the above referred cases relied by the learned counsel for the appellants, there was de".eas. in the earning capacify due to physicaJ disability' Therefore, functional disab,ity was taken at enhanced rate, compared to physical disability. However, in the instant case, the appellant tailed to produce any documentary evidence to show that she was removed from service. Therefore, the loss of earning capacity cannot be taken at lOOo/o and thus, the percentage of functional disability taken by the Tribunal is appropriate. Therefore, this court is inclined to take the income of the appellant at Rs.36,OO0/_ per month. Apart from the same, ttre appelrant is also entitled to addition of 4ooh towa-rds future prospects, as per the decrsion of the Honbre Supreme Court in National Insurance Compang Limited. u, pranag 'zors(r)alo rrs (sc) - 2023(4)ArD 8OO (TS) '(2014) s scc 330 I I 5 Sethi ond otherss. Therefore, monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs.50,400/- (Rs.36,O00/- + Rs.l4,4O0/-) and the annual income comes to Rs.6,04,800/-. Taking the income of the appellant at Rs.6,04,800/- per annum, the loss of earnings with the disability at 4oolo would be Rs,2,41,92O/- per annum. In view of the judgment of Sarta Vertna a. Delhi Transpott Corporation6, the suitable multiplier to be adopted for calculating the loss of earnings would be '18'. Therefore. the loss of earnings on account of her disability would be Rs.2,41,92Ol- x 18 = Rs.43,54,560/-. Further, the appellant is also entitled for Rs.5,O00/- for grievous injury, Rs.9,340/- towards medical expenses. Rs.1,00,0OO/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3,16,520/ towards future medical expenses and Rs.2 1,852/- towards transportation and extra nourishment as awarded by the Tribunal. In all. the appellant is entitled for Rs.48,O7,272/-.

7. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from 31,50,O00/- to Rs.48,O7,272/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7 '5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos. I and 2 jointly and severally. However, the appellant is directed to pay delicit fee on the enhanced amount' There shall be no order as to costs. 'zolz act zloo t 2oo9 qcJ 1298 -7 6 Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed. 4 I 1 //TRUE COPY// sd/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSI TANT REGISTRAR \ ECTION OFFICER To 1 2 3 4 rhecharman,\4rtrrv"i'"r"s{H[1t*ii?,s{rfi *;i'3:H"1,ilil:;""" El.:'3ti::JilihFl;'w^n ndvoca,e ro . Two CD CoPies p u cl HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.1654 of 2019 -z"aa: 1EL4 \ =$ s* (>. v t C. ,-Y 'n 4 '(,' j .l ALLOWING THE MACMA IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE Y. RENUKA MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANE o US APPEAL NO: 1654 OF 2019 Between: Ms. Kandikonda Bhavana, Bhavani Shilpa' D/o. Lale Panduranam' Aged.30 v"irr, O"i, Software programmer, R/o. H.No. 6-3-1091C, Near Fortune Hotel, ilaj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad ..APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

1. Mohd. Nazimuddin Mossa, S/o. Mohd. Nawaz Moosa. Aged Major' Occ: Business, R/o. H.No.5-5-213, Patel Nagar, Hyderabad

2. National lnsurance Company Ltd., Rep by its Regional Manager' Moghal Courts, HYderabad. .RESPONDENTS/RESPDTS AppealfiledunderSectionlT3ofMotorvehlclesAct,,againsttheJudgment and decree, made in M.v.o.P.No. 06 0f 2011 dated. 09.01.20 13 0n the file of the chairman, Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum- Xlll Additional chief Judge, (FTC)' Cty Civil Court at HYderabad. Thisappealcomingonforhearinganduponperusingthegroundsofappeal, the Judgment and Decree of the court below and the material papers in the MVOP anduponhearingtheargumentsofSRl.JAGATHPALREDDYKAS|REDDY' Advocate for the appellant and of smt. I MAAMU VANI, Counsel for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared, for the Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the MACMA be and hereby allowed; 2. That the Compensation amount awarded by the tribunal be and hereby enhanced from Rs.3'1 ,50,0001- to Rs.48,07,2721-'

3. That the enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.570 per annum from the date - of petition till the date of rearization, payabre by respondent Nos..r & 2 joinfly and severally; 4. That the appellant be and hereby directed to pay deficit fee on the enhanced 5. That save as aforesaid the order of the lower court be and hereby as 6. That there shatl be no order as to costs in this appeal. confirmed in all other aspects; amount; //TRUE COPY// Sd/- V. HARI PRASAD ASSI TANT REGISTRAR To SE(:TION OFFICER

1. The chairman. Motor Vehicles Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-Xlll Additionat ^ Chief Juqge (FTC) City Civit Court, Hyderabad. 2. Two CD Copies p, yt- HIGH COURT DATED:21 10212025 DECREE MACMA.No.1654 of 2019 ) -f l: s s- <rDt\ \ tl' Fli ,1\'.,/ a d )- _) ALLOWING THE MACMA j-\,PS .k*