Telangana High Court
Kummari Karrolla Sravan vs T.Laxmi Another on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA NO. 634 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.01.10.2013 in
O.P No.96 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy
(for short "the Tribunal"), the claimant preferred the present
appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded
an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- with proportionate costs and
interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the
petition till the date of realization of the amount against the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally against the claim
of Rs.6,00,000/- laid by the appellant/claimant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.2011
while the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle from
Kancharla village street towards the main road and when he
reached near Uradamma Temple at Kancharla village at about
1.15 p.m., the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-9-T-0969
drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the
2 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
petitioner's cycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and
sustained loss of both jaws, loss of four teeth, fracture of left
leg, fracture of left knee and skull. Hence, the present claim
petition.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters denying the
allegations made in the petition.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. No oral and
documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the
respondents.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant
and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance
Company.
7. According to the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal
erroneously granted a very meagre amount and for
enhancement of the same, the petitioner filed the present
appeal. Upon considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal
awarded a compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- as against
Rs.6,00,000/-. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the
appellant/claimant that the Tribunal failed to consider the
3 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
disability as stated by the Doctor/PW.2 and awarded a very
meagre amount under the head of disability.
8. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 and the medical
certificate, it reveals that the petitioner had a crush injury of
the ankle on foot with loss of shaft tissue exposing bone and
crush injury of left knee exposing joint anterior with loss of
soft tissue over the anterior aspect of the lower thigh exposing
bones. Further PW.2 deposed that there is ankylosis of the left
knee with 30 degrees of fixed fraction, deformation which
amounts to 40% physical disability and functional disability.
The respondents have not disputed the same by adducing any
evidence. Whereas the Tribunal has assessed 20% disability.
9. In Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another1
wherein it was held as follows:
"Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that
Section 4(1) (c) does not stipulate a requirement of assessment by
the medical practitioner who had treated the workmen concerned at
the first instance. It is always open for the qualified medical
practitioner to assess the loss of disability vis-à-vis loss of earning
capacity with reference to the injuries sustained by him and if the
employer or the Insurance Company was not satisfied with the
assessment made by the medical practitioner, whose evidence was
produced, contra evidence ought to have been adduced by the
2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB)
4 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
Insurance Company to rebut or impeach the evidence of the medical
officer adduced on behalf of the workmen. In the absence of such
evidence, we cannot find fault with the order of the learned
Commissioner."
In the absence of contra evidence, this Court is inclined
to take into consideration the disability of 40% as assessed by
the PW.2. Since the petitioner is a minor, multiplier "15" is
taken and notional income is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per
annum. As such, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly
income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs.15,000/- per annum,
in view of 40% disability of the appellant/claimant and future
prospects of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay
Sethi and others2 is to be considered. Therefore, the future
prospectus of the injured at 40% comes to Rs.21,000/-
(15,000/- + 6,000/- = 21,000/-). From this, 40% is to be
considered on account of disablement (Rs.21,000 x 40% =
8,400/-), the appropriate multiplier is 15 as the petitioner is
aged 13 years as per Sarla Verma's case. Thus, the loss of
future earnings of the petitioner would come to Rs.8,4000/- x
15 =1,26,000/-.
2 2017 ACJ 2700
5 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
10. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under
various heads, especially under medical expenses/treatment
though the petitioner filed Ex-A6 and A9 bills. As such, this
Court is of the considered view to grant compensation to the
petitioner as against the compensation amount granted by the
Tribunal as follows:
Head Amount awarded Amount enhanced
by Tribunal by this Court
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Transportation, Rs.25,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Extra nourishment
and attendant
charges
Loss of studies Nil Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of future Rs.45,000/- Rs.1,26,000/-
earning/ disability
(disability)
Total Rs.1,95,000/- Rs.3,46,000/-
11. Thus, the compensation amount awarded is
enhanced from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.3,46,000/- (Rupees Three
Lakh and forty six thousand only).
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by
enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to
6 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
Rs.3,46,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and forty six thousand
only) with the interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the
date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest and costs after
giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any,
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
14th day of February, 2023
BDR
