Telangana High Court
A S Kumar, Hyd vs B. Sai Raj Kumar, Hyd Another on 22 December, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1551 OF 2016
ORDER:
This appeal has been filed by the injured/claimant
seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief
Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the
Tribunal"), in O.P.No.151 of 2012, dated 17.10.2015.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are
that the appellant claims to have been driving his motor vehicle
bearing No.AP 28TP T/R 5538 on the left side of the road, when
a Car bearing No.AP 28BC 3699 came with a high speed in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's
motor vehicle on 27.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., and
consequently, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture
injury to his left leg, head injury and blunt injuries all over the
body. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in Ramdev Baba
Hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to BBR Hospital,
where he was treated and he was further admitted in People's
Hospital for removal of steel rod from his left leg and he was
treated as an out-patient in Tilak Nagar Hospital for further
treatment.
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
3. The appellant filed O.P.No.151 of 2012 under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 B of A.P. Motor
Vehicle Rule 1989 before the Tribunal claiming Rs.5,00,000/-
as compensation towards injuries caused to him in the motor
vehicle accident that took place on 27.08.2011. The petitioner
claimed the compensation under various heads and also
claimed 20% as partial permanent disability. But the Tribunal
has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,93,000/- with interest thereon
@ 9% per annum. Thus, seeking enhancement of the
compensation, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted
that the claimant has sustained 20% of partial permanent
disability and has relied upon the evidence of the Doctor who
treated the injured/claimant in support of his contention. He
has filed a copy of the evidence of the Doctor, wherein the
Doctor has stated that the movements of the left knee joint from
0 to 1200 of flexion movements are limited and the disability
was assessed at 20% as partial permanent disability and the
loss of earning capacity was also assessed at 20%. It was
further observed that due to the above disability, the injured
cannot stand, sit and squat and he cannot walk for long
distances as the injury sustained by the injured is grievous in
nature. He therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
considered the evidence of the doctor and granted compensation
towards 20% partial permanent disability.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant, Sri K. Hari Mohan
Reddy, relied upon the following judgments of this Court in
support of his contention that the disability certified by the
doctor would refer to physical disability and suitable
compensation has to be awarded accordingly.
(1) MACMA No.1475 of 2011, dated 08.09.2022.
(2) MACMA No.126 & 331 of 2021, dated 13.09.2022.
6. Learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, Sri
T. Mahender Rao, however, submitted that the very same Doctor
has also given evidence that the injuries sustained by the
injured have been healed and the fracture is united. According
to him, since the injuries have been healed and the fracture is
united, there cannot be any further disability and therefore,
compensation towards disability has rightly not been awarded
by the Tribunal.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on
record and also the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this
Court, this Court is of the opinion that once the doctor has
examined the patient and has given a finding that there is 20%
partial permanent disability, the same has to be taken into
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
consideration by the Tribunal while granting compensation for
the injuries sustained by the claimant. Though the fracture
might have healed, the doctor has given an opinion that the
injured cannot sit and squat and cannot walk long distances as
a result of the injury. This being the situation, the evidence of
the doctor that there is a partial permanent disability assumes
importance. Since the doctor has rated partial and permanent
disability at 20%, this Court deems it fit and proper to award
compensation towards loss of future earnings at 20% of the
established income. In this case, though the injured claimed
monthly income to be at Rs.17,000/-, the Tribunal has not
given any finding on the same as no evidence was produced.
Remanding the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the
monthly income after lapse of so many years would not serve
any useful purpose. Therefore, it is directed to adopt a
reasonable sum of Rs.9,000/- per month (i.e., @ Rs.300/- per
day) and re-compute the compensation accordingly. When
computed based on the multiplier of 18 according to his age at
the time of the accident, the loss of future earnings comes to
Rs.3,88,800/- (Rs.9000x12x20%x18).
8. The next ground raised is with regard to the
compensation towards loss of future prospects as per the Apex
Court judgments. It is submitted that even in the case of
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
injuries where the partial permanent disability has been
accepted, the suitable compensation ought to have been
awarded for loss of future prospects.
9. The learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the
following Judgments in support of the claim of compensation
towards disability and loss of future prospects:
(i) P.Vydehi Vs. A.Srinivas & Another1;
(ii) S.Satya Jaya Vs. G.Harshavardhan Reddy and
Another2;
(iii) M.Anjaneyulu Vs. K.V.Rathaiah3;
(iv) P.Benzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara and
Another4;
(v) Syed Nawaz Ali Vs. V.Kondal Rao and Another5;
(vi) V. Anji Reddy Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., and
Another6.
10. This Court finds that the above decisions relied on by the
learned counsel for the claimant were decided based on the
principle enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
1 High Court of A.P. in MACMA No.3034 of 2012, dated 29.04.2014.
2 High Court of A.P. in MACMA No.3031 of 2012, dated 29.04.2014.
3 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.2240 of 2012, dated 02.08.2019.
4 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.575 of 2011, dated 19.08.2019.
5 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.2491 of 2012, dated 02.08.2019.
6 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.162 of 2013 dt.04.09.2019
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
Court of India in the case of Jagadish Vs. Mohan and Others7,
wherein the factual matrix is that the injured lost his both
hands and was unable to perform day to day activities without
assistance of an attendant and his disablement was assessed at
90%.
11. In the case of P.Vydehi Vs. A.Srinivas & Another (1
supra), it was held that the injured therein cannot sit and
squat, stand and walk for a long time due to mall union of pelvic
bone and developed stiffness of right hip, femer and right side
knee and therefore, she is unable to discharge her duties
effectively and she was held to be suffering from permanent
disablement.
12. In the case of S.Satya Jaya Vs. G.Harshavardhan Reddy
and Another (2 supra), it was observed that the injured therein
sustained seven injuries including grievous injury on the front
of wedge compression, fracture of D12 Vertebra, fracture of left
leg foot, linear fracture, head of V M.T. Femer and based on
these injuries, it was concluded that the injured cannot travel
long distances, cannot bend, cannot lift weights and cannot sit
continuously for long time and that it is difficult for her to
discharge her duties effectively and she was held to be suffering
from permanent disablement.
7 (2018) ACJ 1011 (SC)
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
13. The injured persons in the cases of M.Anjaneyulu Vs.
K.V.Rathaiah (3 supra), P.Benzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara
and Another (4 supra), Syed Nawaz Ali Vs. V.Kondal Rao,
Another (5 supra) and V. Anji Reddy Vs. Reliance Industries
Ltd., and another (6 supra), were certified to be suffering from
multiple fracture injuries and were assessed to be suffering from
disability. In all these cases, this Hon'ble Court awarded future
prospects by relying on the principle enunciated in the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish
Vs. Mohan and Others (7 supra).
14. In the case on hand, it is submitted that the petitioner is
a tutor and was also working as an Assistant in Sri Ram Chit
Fund. The evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, is to the effect that the
petitioner had complaints of pain in the left knee joint and
fracture 'Tibia' on left side and his movements are restricted.
P.W.2 stated that the fracture is united. In view of the evidence
of the doctor, this Court finds that the nature of injuries
sustained by the injured in the present case do not propose
award of compensation towards loss of future prospects
inasmuch as these injuries are not of the nature defined under
Section 142 of Motor Vehicles Act as laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
Another (8 supra). In that view of the matter, no compensation
is awarded under the head 'loss of future prospects'.
15. As regards the compensation towards damages to clothing
and articles, which is claimed at Rs.2,000/-, this Court is
inclined to award the same as it is not in dispute that clothing
and articles have been damaged in the accident.
16. As regards the claim of the claimant for compensation
towards loss of amenities, marriage prospects, mental agony
and social status @ Rs.75,000/-, the learned counsel for the
claimant submitted that the claimant was only 22 years of age
at the time of the accident and as a result of the accident and
consequential 20% partial permanent disability, the petitioner
has suffered loss of amenities, marriage prospects, mental
agony and social status due to injury caused to his left leg. He
relied upon the evidence of that doctor that left leg of the
claimant was shortened by ½ cm, due to which there is wastage
of muscle on the left side and there is a limp, due to which he
was unable to get proper marriage prospects.
17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company however
refuted this argument.
18. Having regard to the evidence of the doctor that there is
shortening of left leg by ½ cm and further the claimant has
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
suffered partial permanent disability of being unable to sit and
squat and not being able to walk for long distances, this Court
is of the opinion that the claimant has suffered loss of amenities
and therefore, suitable compensation should be awarded to him.
To meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to
award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the same.
19. As regards the claim of amount of Rs.30,000/- for pain
and suffering, this Court finds that the Tribunal has already
granted Rs.20,000/- towards the same and therefore, no further
enhancement is required for the same. As per the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court, interest is to be awarded at 7.5% per
annum instead of 9% per annum.
20. The compensation awarded to the injured/appellant is as
under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation Awarded
1. Compensation for Rs.60,000/- (awarded by
injuries Tribunal)
2. Extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- (awarded by
Travelling and Tribunal)
Attendant charges
3. Loss of earnings Rs.50,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
5. Implants removal Rs.40,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
6. Medical Treatment Rs.73,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
7. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
8. Damages for Clothing Rs.2,000/-
and articles
9. Loss of future 3,88,800/-
earnings
Total Compensation Rs.7,33,800/- along with
awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition
to till the date of payment.
21. In the result, the award dated 17.10.2015 in O.P.No.151
of 2012 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City
Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a total
compensation of Rs.7,33,800/- (Rupees Seven lakhs thirty three
thousand and eight hundred only) with costs and interest
thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition
till the date of payment against both the respondents jointly and
severally. As the compensation payable to the appellant as per
law was found to be higher than the original claim of
Rs.5,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,33,800/- is
granted subject to payment of Court fee thereon. The
respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount
within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment. On such deposit being made by the respondents,
the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security.
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
22. The MACMA is accordingly partly allowed without costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this
MACMA shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 22.12.2022
bak
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1551 OF 2016
Date: 22.12.2022
bak
