Telangana High Court
Abdul Sattar , Bablu vs The Managing Director And Another on 2 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2238 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award and decree dated 12.07.2010, in O.P.No.1227 of 2008 on the file of learned V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Hyderabad the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. According to the appellant/claimant, on 06.05.2008, while he was going on his motor cycle, the offending vehicle which is a RTC Bus, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained fracture of Grade I open left humerus with 1/3rd of radial (N) palsy, fracture of left leg and other grievous injuries all over the body.
4. The manner in which the accident has taken place and the liability are not in dispute.
5. The Doctor who was examined as PW-2 gave conservative treatment by examining the petitioner on 02.07.2009. According to him, the petitioner suffered with stiffness of left shoulder joint and elbow. He was facing great difficulty in lifting weight and moving the hand and he estimated 30% partial disability. Ex.A6 - Disability Certificate was given to that effect. However, during the 2 cross-examination, he stated that it was possible to reduce disability from 30% to less percentage.
6. The learned Tribunal Judge found that since he was not treated in the Rajya Laxmi Hospital where PW-2 worked, his evidence regarding disability cannot be accepted. Though the petitioner was initially treated in Osmania General Hospital, the disability certificate was not taken from the Medical Board of the said Hospital.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2023, seeking enhancement of the original claim in O.P.No.1227 of 2008 from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.6,26,560/- by permitting the petitioner to amend the Section of law from 163(A) to 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The said application was allowed by this Court on 08.09.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgments of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Syed Saleem vs. Abdul Shukur and another 1 and Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another 2 and argued that a Surgeon is competent to give medical certificate regarding disability and necessarily need not be from the Doctor who treated the injured. He also placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others 3 and Muhammed vs. 1 2007 (1) ALD 382 2 2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB) 3 2020(2) ALD 235 (SC) 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 4 and Judgment of the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Zahura Begum vs. V.Venkata Ramana and others 5 and argued that future prospects shall be considered while granting compensation.
9. PW.2-Doctor is competent Surgeon who had assessed the disability at 30%, however in his cross-examination, he stated that the disability can even be reduced. However, keeping in view that the appellant was suffering with failure of implant and malunion of L-humerus and also suffering with stiffness of left shoulder joint and elbow, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the disability as 20%.
10. According to the appellant/claimant, he was earning an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, working as a driver. As the appellant was aged about 25 years, future prospects @ 40% has to be considered. Hence, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4500+Rs.1800). In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 6, as the appellant was aged about 25 years, the appropriate multiplier would be '18' and the disability of the claimant is taken as 20%. Under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,72,160/-
4 2023 ACJ 894 5 2023 ACJ 1219 6 2009(6) SCC 121 4 (6,300x12x18x20%). The appellant is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- for one fracture injury, Rs.30,000/- towards pain, suffering and loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards removal of implant, Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation and Rs.2,000/- towards damages to clothes. Thus, in total the appellant is entitled to Rs.3,67,160/-
(2,72,160+25,000+30,000+10,000+5,000+15,000+5,000+3,000+2,00
0).
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.50,000 /- to Rs.3,67,160/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee. Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same on all other aspects.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 02.08.2024 sa