Telangana High Court

Yasa Satyanarayana vs Ch Sambasiva Rao on 14 November, 2022

Bench: Shameem Akther, Nagesh Bheemapaka

        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
                          AND
      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.2408 OF 2013

JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)


      Dissatisfied with the grant of compensation of Rs.7,81,250/-

as against a claim of Rs.33,00,000/-, by the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional

District Judge at Khammam ('the Tribunal' for brevity), vide order,

dated 12.06.2013, passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.29 of 2011, the

claimant preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for brevity) seeking enhancement of

compensation.


2.    We have heard the submissions of Smt. G.Vijaya Lakshmi,

learned counsel, representing Sri S. Chalapathi Rao, learned

counsel for the appellant/claimant, Sri B.Kumara Swamy, learned

counsel, representing Sri S.Agastya Sarma, learned counsel for

respondent No.2 and perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would

contend that the appellant/claimant had suffered accidental

injuries in the subject accident. Consequently, his left leg was

amputated above knee level. There is medical evidence coupled

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

with cogent and consistent evidence of PWs.1 to 5 to substantiate

that the appellant/claimant had suffered 60% permanent disability

in the subject accident. The Tribunal, while considering the

disability, took only 20% permanent disability and calculated and

awarded compensation. The appellant/claimant was a constable in

police department and he lost three promotions due to the

disability sustained by him in the subject accident. Owing to the

subject accident, the appellant/claimant was deprived of

enjoyment of life and pride and pleasure in his work. The Court

below ought to have taken the permanent disability as 60% as

assessed by the Medical Board, Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad under Ex.A5. Further, the Tribunal did not grant

adequate compensation on different heads and ultimately prayed

to enhance the compensation as claimed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2

would contend that the Tribunal, having carefully analysed the

evidence on record and placing reliance on the decision of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar1, rightly took

the disability as 20% and awarded compensation of Rs.5,77,250/-

under the head of 'loss of future earnings', which is just and

reasonable. Further, the Tribunal granted adequate compensation

2011 ACJ 1

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

on different heads. Moreover, the appellant/claimant was a

constable in police department and hence, there is no reduction in

his earnings, even after amputation of left leg above knee level.

There are no circumstances to enhance the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal and ultimately, prayed to dismiss the appeal by

confirming the order under challenge.

5. In view of the above submissions, the points that arise for

determination in this appeal are as follows:

1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the appellant/claimant is just and reasonable?"

2. Whether the appellant/claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as contended?

POINT:-

6. It is not in dispute that on 23.10.2010, while the

appellant/claimant was proceedings on his Pulsar motorcycle in

morning hours from Sathupally to Kalluru and about 10:30 AM,

when he crossed Kistaram Village and reached near Holy Faith

B.Ed. College, a Tipper bearing registration No.AP-16-TX-1481

loaded with coal going from Sathupally towards V.M.Banjar, being

driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed

against the motorcycle of the petitioner from back side as a result

of which, the appellant/claimant fell on the road and was dragged

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

by the said Tipper along with the motorcycle for some distance and

sustained crush injury to his left leg below the knee. Resultantly,

the left leg of the appellant/claimant was amputated above knee

level. There is also no dispute that the appellant/claimant was a

police constable as on the date of the subject accident. The salary

certificate of the appellant/claimant under Ex.A6 substantiates that

he was drawing a monthly gross salary of Rs.13,572/- as on the

date of the subject accident. The Tribunal, holding that the

appellant/claimant continued in service even after amputation of

his left leg above knee level and was being paid the salary as was

being paid prior to the accident, took the permanent functional

disability as 20% and accordingly calculated the compensation

under the head of loss of earnings. It is evident from Ex.A5-

Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board, Osmania

University, Hyderabad, that the appellant/claimant sustained 60%

disability. Amputation of left leg above knee level would certainly

cause great pain and suffering and mental agony to the

appellant/claimant. He has to undergo great ordeal and agony

throughout his life. He would certainly be deprived of enjoyment

of life and pride and pleasure in his work, which cannot be

compensated in monetary terms. Since the appellant/claimant

was a police constable, his promotional avenues would also get

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

affected due to the permanent disability sustained by him.

However, the fact remains that since the appellant/claimant was a

police constable, there would not be any reduction of earnings.

Taking all these factors into consideration, we deem it just and

reasonable to take the permanent disability sustained by the

appellant/claimant in the subject accident as 50%, instead of 20%

taken by the Tribunal.

7. As per Ex.A6, the monthly salary of the appellant/claimant

was Rs.13,572/- plus HRA of Rs.3,836/-, which comes to

Rs.17,408/- per month and Rs.2,08,896/- per annum. As per the

decision in Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transportation

Corporation2, where the annual income is in taxable range, the

income tax payable by the injured should be deducted from the

gross income for determining the income of the injured.

Accordingly, after deducting statutory deductions like GPF, APGLI,

APGIS and Professional Tax which amounts to Rs.3,180/-, the

taxable annual income of the appellant/claimants comes to

Rs.2,05,716/- (Rs.2,08,896/- minus Rs.3,180/-). The income tax

including the educational cess payable by the appellant/claimant

on the said amount comes to Rs.4,519/-. Thus, the annual income

of the appellant/claimant would be Rs.2,04,377/- (Rs.2,08,896/-

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

minus Rs.4,519/-). As held supra, the permanent disability

suffered by the appellant/claimant is required to be taken as 50%.

Hence, the future loss of earnings would come to Rs.1,02,188/-

(Rs.2,04,377/- x 50%) rounded off to Rs.1,02,200/-. As per the

decision in Sarla Verma's case supra, the appropriate multiplier

applicable to the age of the appellant/claimant is 14. Thus, the

total loss of future earnings would work out to Rs.14,30,800/-

(Rs.1,02,200/- x 14). The Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards

transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment,

Rs.75,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards

purchase and replacement of prosthesis and Rs.9,000/- towards

attendant charges, which are just and reasonable. Thus, the

appellant/claimant is entitled for the compensation as detailed

below.

1. Towards loss of future earnings Rs.14,30,800/-

2. Towards transportation charges Rs.15,000/-

 3.   Towards extra nourishment                          Rs.10,000/-
 4.   Towards pain and suffering                         Rs.75,000/-
 5.   Towards purchase and replacement of prosthesis     Rs.1,00,000/-
 6.   Towards attendant charges                          Rs.9,000/-
                         TOTAL                           Rs.16,39,800/-

Thus, the appellant/claimant is entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.16,39,800/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 7.5%

per annum on the amount granted as compensation from the date

of petition till realisation, which is just and reasonable.

Dr.SA,J & NBK,J MACMA No.2408/2013

8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part, modifying the

order, dated 12.06.2013, passed in M.A.T.O.P.No.29 of 2011 by

the Tribunal, enhancing the compensation from Rs.7,81,250/- to

Rs.16,39,800/- (Rupees sixteen lakh thirty nine thousand eight

hundred only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry

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

realisation. The appellant/claimant is permitted to withdraw the