Telangana High Court
Sri B.Appala Naidu, W.G.Dt., vs Sri G.Srinivas, Bangalore Anr., on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.4024 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.4024 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed by the appellant/petitioner under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking
enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree
dt.30.07.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.205 of 2008 by the I Additional
Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Secunderabad (in short 'the Court below').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter
referred to as they were arrayed before the Court below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 24.10.2007 at about 2 a.m.,
while the petitioner was travelling from Hyderabad to Banglore on duty in
a vehicle bearing No.KA-02-D-6607 and when he reached near
Raminepally Village, the driver of the vehicle drove it in a rash and
negligent manner while trying to overtake another vehicle, and dashed
the opposite vehicle. Due to this, the driver suffered minor injuries,
whereas the petitioner sustained serious injuries. As such, due to the
injuries sustained by him, he lost his earning capacity and future
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.4024 of 2014
prospects. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking
compensation of Rs.14,42,700/-.
4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent
filed counter denying the petition allegations and prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
5. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 6 and got
marked Exs.A1 to A51. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor
documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Court
below allowed the claim petition in part by granting Rs.4,33,328/- to the
petitioner towards compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation, the present appeal.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court
below erred in considering only 25% disability despite the petitioner is
filed Ex.A46 which proves that the petitioner suffered with 40%
disability. He further contended that the Court below failed to award a
reasonable amount towards loss of earnings and prayed to enhance the
compensation amount.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.4024 of 2014
9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent
would contend that the Court below was justified in passing the
impugned order with reasons for considering only 25% disability.
Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. As seen from the evidence on record, it is proved that the
petitioner sustained grievous injury and the Court below observed that
the total loss of the lower limb up to the knee has to be considered as
50% partial permanent disability as per Workman Compensation Act.
Whereas, in the case of the petitioner, the Court below observed that
noting 40% of disability is only based on malunited fracture of bones
appears to be excessive and it estimated that the petitioner is suffering
with 25% partial permanent disability. This Court is of the view that the
Court below erred in concluding that the petitioner's disability could be
considered at 25% and this Court feels that such own assessment is
unwarranted when genuine evidence vide Ex.A46 is filed in proof of 40%
disability by the petitioner.
11. Thus, the loss of future earnings @ Rs. 1,89,720/- is
enhanced to; Rs.3,720/- (monthly income) x 12 + 40% future prospects
(as per Pranay Sethi1) x 40% x 17 (multiplier) = Rs. 4,24,972/-. The
National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017)16 SCC 680.
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.4024 of 2014
petitioner was awarded Rs.2,27,160/- towards medical expenditure and
the same is undisturbed. The petitioner was awarded Rs.5,000/- towards
pain and suffering which are meagre, keeping in view the grievous
injuries, the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner was
awarded Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges which is meagre,
keeping in view that the petitioner underwent treatment as an inpatient
for 53 days, the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The Court below
failed to grant compensation towards extra nourishment and attendant
charges, as such, this Court feels it necessary to grant Rs.10,000/-
towards the same.
12. In all, the petitioner is entitled to enhanced compensation of
Rs.6,82,132/- (4,24,972/- + 2,27,160/- + 10,000/- + 10,000/-+
10,000/-).
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Court below from
Rs.4,33,328/- to Rs.6,82,132/- (Rupees Six Lakh, Eighty Two
thousand, One hundred and Thirty Two only) with interest @ 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
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.4024 of 2014
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The appellant/petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall
stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
14th day of March, 2023
BDR
