Telangana High Court
T. Sreeram vs Mohd. Haimad Pasha Another on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the
award dt.02.07.2014, passed in O.P. No.959 of 2008 by the V
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Mahila Court-cum-XIX
Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Court below").
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming
the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries
sustained by him. It is stated that on 25.09.2007 at 11 pm., while
the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider along with his friend
on a scooter bearing No.AP28-A-8746 towards Amberpet and
when they reached near Gandhi Statue, the offending auto
bearing No.AP28-X-8968 came in opposite direction in a rash and
negligent manner and dashed the scooter on which the appellant
was travelling and consequently, he fell on the road and sustained
grievous injury on his right leg. Immediately, the appellant was
shifted to Osmania General Hospital and was treated as an
inpatient from 26.09.2007 to 02.10.2007. At the time of the
2 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014
accident, the appellant was working as Marketing Executive,
drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,200/- and due to the said
accident, he became a permanently disabled person. Hence the
claim petition.
3. The 1st respondent did not contest the petition and the
second respondent filed a written statement denying the
allegations made in the petition.
4. To prove his case, the appellant got examined PWs.1 and 2
and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below
allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of
Rs.2,47,800/- to the appellant to be paid by the respondents.
Aggrieved by the quantum, the present appeal is filed by the
appellant/petitioner.
6. Heard Sri Koduru Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the
appellant, Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner
inter alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding just
compensation to the appellant and also grossly erred in granting
meagre interest and considering the documents under Exs.P3 to
P6, the Court below ought to have considered them in arriving at
the income of the appellant. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent
No.2/Insurance Company inter alia contended that the author of
Ex.A5 Salary Certificate was not examined and the doctor who
issued EX.A4 disability was not examined. He also contended that
the Court Below was justified in passing the impugned order,
which calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayed
to dismiss the appeal.
9. The Court below assessed the income of the appellant at
Rs.6,000/-p.m. as against Rs.6,200/- which is the claim of the
appellant through Ex.A5 salary certificate. This Court is of the
considered view that the assessment made by the Court below is
not on the lower side and is reasonable. Hence the same is not
altered. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that
the Court below ought not to have considered Ex. A4 disability
4 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014
certificate as it bears the words "for non judicial purpose" and as
such the same cannot be relied upon, this contention is rejected
as it is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone the said
amputation and the respondent no.2 cannot resist such fact.
However, the compensation granted under other heads deserves to
be enhanced as they are meagre despite the petitioner proving
that he suffered with 40% permanent disablement and they are
depicted as hereunder:
Head Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
the Court below this Court
Loss of earnings Rs.18,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Transportation Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,200/-
Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
and loss of amenities
Medical bills Rs.7,800/- Rs.7,800/-
Loss of future Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,50,000/-
earnings
Total Rs.2,47,800/- Rs.3,20,000/-
10. In all, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty
Thousand Only). The Court below awarded 9% interest on the
compensation, however, this Court is time and again granting
7.5% interest on the compensation amount and the interest
5 RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014
portion. As such the interest portion awarded by the Court below
is liable to be reduced from 9% to 7.5%.
11. Accordingly, this MACMA is allowed in part by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Court below from
Rs.2,47,800/- to Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty
Thousand Only) with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition
till the date of realisation. The respondents shall deposit the
amount with proportionate costs and interest within a period of
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
On such a deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount. However, There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
16th day of March, 2023
PNS
