Telangana High Court

M. Suresh vs Sri R. Mallesh Anr on 13 June, 2022

Bench: N.Tukaramji

       HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


        M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1560 AND 2098 OF 2007


COMMON JUDGMENT:


      Since both the appeals are arising out of common

impugned Award, they have been heard together and being

decided by this common judgment.


2.    M.A.C.M.A.No.1560 of 2007 is filed by the insurer/2nd

respondent disputing quantum of compensation awarded

and M.A.C.M.A.No.2098 of 2007 is filed by the

claimant/petitioner for enhancement of compensation

awarded in the decree and judgment dated 09.03.2007 in

O.P.No.1769 of 2004 on the file of X Additional Chief Judge,

(FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

as per their array before the Tribunal.

4. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri P.Bhanu Prakash and Sri T.Ramulu

learned counsel for the insurer/2nd respondent.

2 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

5. The factual background of this case is that, on

27.05.2004, while the petitioner and one Ramu, proceeding

on a scooter bearing registration No.AP10D 5845 and when

they reached the limits of Kollakal village, one Indica car

bearing registration No.AP28AG 8031, came in opposite

direction and dashed the scooter. As a result, the petitioner

fell down and suffered severe injuries all over his body.

Thus, claiming medical expenses, disability and other

damages, filed the petition for compensation of

Rs.4,00,000/-.

6. The Tribunal on considering the material on record,

granted Rs.12,500/- for the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, Rs.2,500/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,192/-

towards medical expenditure, Rs.1,02,000/- towards loss of

future earnings due to disability, Rs.2,500/- toward loss of

income during treatment period, Rs.2,000/- towards extra

nourishment and transportation charges, total

Rs.1,27,692/-.

                                     3                                 NTR,J
                                                     Macma_1560 & 2098_2007




7.       In      appeal,    the    learned       counsel         for    the

claimant/petitioner contended that though the Tribunal

allowed the petition on all the claimed counts, granted only

meager amount. Thus, the claim has to be re-assessed. He

placed reliance on the authorities of the Hon'ble Apex Court

in Mundrathi Laxmikantha and others Vs. M.Sadanandam1

and Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2.

8. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer

assails the impugned award on the whole that though there

was no disability, the Tribunal erred in counting on the

disability certificate and granting the compensation under

this head.

9. Thus, the point emerges for determination is:

Whether the learned Tribunal had properly assessed the compensation and any interference is required ?

10. At the outset, in the appeal, the insurer/2nd respondent

has not disputed the accident, the injuries to the

2018 (1) AlD 308

(2011) 1 SCC 343 4 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

claimant/petitioner and its liability to indemnify the

insured/1st respondent.

11. The claimant as P.W.1 deposed that by the date of

accident, he was aged about 22 years and was earning

Rs.3,000/- per month as labourer and in the accident, he

sustained fracture of both bones of right lower limb, injuries

on fore head and both hands and other injuries all over the

body.

12. Even though, the medical record is showing the age of

the petitioner at 18 years, the petitioner claimed his age at

22 years. One Venkat/P.W.2, deposed that the petitioner

used to work as labourer in the Tent House and used to earn

Rs.3,000/- per month. As the avocation pleaded is part of

an informal and unorganized sector, expecting certification

of income would not be fair and as the occupation is not in

dispute, pay of Rs.100/- per day at the relevant time for

manual labour is found reasonable.

13. Further, the evidence of the doctor/P.W.3 and the

entries in M.L.C/Ex.A4, discharge summary/Ex.A5 are 5 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

revealing that the petitioner suffered crush injuries with

dislocation of ankle and was admitted as inpatient on

27.05.2004 and discharged on 18.06.2004. Thus, these

aspects as reflected in the medical record are found

acceptable.

14. The petitioner claimed medical expenditure of

Rs.80,000/-, but for the reasons best known to him, placed

a bunch of medical bills/Ex.A7 only for Rs.6,192/-, be it as it

may, as the petitioner undergone treatment in the

Government Hospital i.e., Gandhi Hospital and in the

absence of any other material, no impropriety is found in

reimbursing the Ex.A7/bills amounts.

15. The petitioner was under treatment as inpatient for 23

days. The medical evidence is showing crush injuries to the

lower limb. This injury, treatment and the period of healing

would have certainly effected the mobility, thereby the

petitioner would have suffered loss of income at least for a

period of two months. Therefore Rs.6,000/- is awarded

towards loss of earnings during treatment period.

6 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

16. The petitioner contended that the injuries suffered in

the accident resulted in permanent disability. In support,

filed the disability certificate/Ex.A8 issued by the medical

board, wherein, the physical disability is assessed at 40%.

The doctor/P.W.3 who was also the member of the medical

board, stated that the disability was certified by clinical

examination. The respondent/insurer failed to point out

tenable ground to disbelieve the testimony of the

doctor/P.W.3 and the conclusions in the disability

certificate/Ex.A8. Nevertheless, having regard to the usual

practice of the medical assessment of disability of any

individual partains to the particular limb and the settled

position that the physical disability, which causes loss of

earning capacity shall be the basis for assessment of future

loss of income, the occupation of the petitioner and the

estimated partial permanent nature of disability of lower

limb in earning capacity of any manual labour, the loss of

income earning capacipty of the petitioner is accepted at

30%.

7 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

17. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo

Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar3 held that in assessing the

compensation for injuries, the future prospects shall also be

taken into account. Thus, adding 40% of income towards

future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.4,200/-.

18. In view of the above conclusion, the loss of income at

30% per annum would be Rs.15,120/-. The petitioner was

aged about 22 years at the time of accident and if the

relevant multiplier is applied, the total works out to

Rs.2,72,160/-. The petitioner is entitled for this amount for

loss of future earnings due to disability.

19. Furthermore, the awarded amount under the general

damages is found to be inadequate. Having regard to the

totality of the circumstances, the compensation granted

under the heads of pain and suffering, extra nourishment

and transportation are enhanced to Rs.30,000/-,

Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- respectively. Apart from this,

Rs.10,000/- is granted for loss of amenities and Rs.3,000/-

towards damages to clothes.

Civil Appeal No.2567 of 202, dated 17.09.2020 8 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

Thus, the total compensation payable to the petitioner is

reassessed as under.

 Description                                 Amount (Rs.)
 Pain and suffering                               30,000.00
 Medical expenses                                  6,192.00
 Loss of income during treatment period            6,000.00
 Loss of income due to disability               2,72,160.00
 Loss of amenities                                10,000.00
 Extra nourishment                                10,000.00
 Transportation charges                            5,000.00
 Damages to Clothes                                3,000.00
 Total                                         3,42,352.00

20. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.2098 of 2007 is allowed and

M.A.C.M.A.No.1560 of 2007 is dismissed in the following

terms viz.,

(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally

liable to pay Rs.3,42,352/- (Rupees three lakhs, forty two

thousand, three hundred and fifty two only) with interest @

7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization with proportionate interest and costs;

(ii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded

amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy

of this judgment; and 9 NTR,J Macma_1560 & 2098_2007

(iii) on such deposit, the claimant / petitioner is permitted