THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1097 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeal is filed by the appellant / claimant
assailing the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.848 of 2010,
dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, - cum - III Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of
₹.28,04,000/- to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from the date of the petition.
2. Heard Mr. C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2009, when the appellant was traveling in a car along with her family members, a lorry bearing registration No.MH-13-G-868 came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and hit the car. As a result, the appellant suffered grievous head injuries and other injuries on the body rendering her 100% 2 'disabled' as her right side has gone completely paralyzed. The appellant is totally bed-ridden and as per the Doctor's evidence, the appellant is only able to follow certain simple commands, and even to carry out day-to-day activity she is totally dependent on others.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant primarily challenged the income tax assessed by the Tribunal while quantifying the compensation. The challenge also is to the deductions made by the Tribunal while assessing the income tax and ignoring the actual income tax return filed by the appellant. He further contended that even the future prospects has not been taken care of by the Tribunal and that the compensation awarded under the head 'Pain and Suffering' while considering the nature of injuries is on the lower side, and that the appellant ought to have also been provided some compensation towards future medical assistance and the recurring expenses which the family is incurring for engagement of an helper to attend to needs of the appellant.
5. Perusal of the record would further show that the income tax return which was produced before the Court below and marked as Exs.A.9 and 10 reveal that ₹.3 lakhs was the gross income reflected in those documents. The appellant is said to have been working as an 'Administrative Officer' of one of the 3 schools being run at Hyderabad. PW.5, the Chairman of the said School, himself has deposed that both in respect of employee as also in respect of the salary part, the same were not questioned by the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company at all.
6. In the said backdrop, we proceed to decide as to whether the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the appellant, and rounding it off to ₹.1,35,000/-. The income tax return submitted by the appellant reflected the gross annual income to be ₹.3 lakhs, i.e., ₹.25,000 per month. If 10% is deducted towards T.D.S., the annual gross income would come to ₹.2,70,000/-. Given the evidence of PW.5, i.e., the Chairman of the said School, accepting that the appellant was an employee of the School as A.O. and was earning monthly salary of ₹.25,000/- per month, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has erred in not considering this aspect and reducing the income of the appellant to ₹.1,35,000/-. Therefore, the same is set aside. We proceed to assess the gross annual income of the appellant at ₹.2,70,000/-, after deduction of T.D.S. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1, we proceed to calculate future prospects @ 40% on ₹.2,70,000/- that would come to 1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 ₹.1,08,000/-. Therefore, the total income of the appellant would come to ₹.2,70,000 + ₹.1,08,000, that is ₹.3,78,000.
7. Further, from the evidence of PW.2, i.e., the Doctor, who deposed and stated that the appellant is 100% dependent for day to day activity so far as the gravity of the injury is concerned, the appellant is totally bed-ridden and is able to receive only a few commands. Moreover, the Doctor has further also deposed to the extent that appellant is dependent 100% for the day to day needs. In the said backdrop, we do not have the slightest of hesitation in holding that the appellant in the instant case suffers from 100% disability. In the said circumstances, we take ₹.3,78,000/- as 'total income' for quantifying the compensation, which if multiplied by applying the multiplier of '16', as the age of the appellant was 38 years at the time of accident, it would come to ₹.60,48,000/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded towards disability stands at ₹.60,48,000/-.
8. As regards the amount awarded under the head 'Pain and Suffering' and also considering the medical condition as well as the physical state of affairs of the appellant, this Court finds that the amount awarded towards 'Pain and Suffering' by the Tribunal is on a lower side. Therefore, the amount awarded 5 towards 'Pain and Suffering' by the Tribunal is enhanced to ₹.5,00,000/-.
9. In view of above, the total compensation now payable to the appellant stands modified as under :
Sl.No. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
01. Pain and Suffering ₹.5,00,000/-
02. Expenditure towards ₹.15,59,000/-
treatment
03. Loss of earnings ₹.65,000/-
04. Disability ₹.60,48,000/-
TOTAL :: ₹.81,72,000/-
10. Thus, ₹.81,72,000/-is awarded as compensation to the appellant. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal would remain intact.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________ P.SAM KOSHY, J ___________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date : 16.10.2023 Ndr