Chityala Ramesh vs Mohmmad Ghousuddin Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1288 Tel

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1288 Tel
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2023

Telangana High Court

Chityala Ramesh vs Mohmmad Ghousuddin Another on 16 March, 2023

Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao

                                     1                                         RRN,J
                                                                MACMA No.103 of 2014




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                         M.A.C.M.A.No.103 OF 2014

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the appellant/claimant under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking enhancement of

compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dt.26.11.2013

passed in M.V.O.P.No.747 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Warangal, (for

short "the Tribunal").

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be

hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.01.2012 at about

16.00 hours while the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle

bearing No. AP-9-BV-0853 along with his relative to Khanpur Village

and while they were on their return journey to Hyderabad, a Tata

Sumo bearing No.AP36-H-5235 being driven by its driver in a rash

and negligent manner and at high speed, came in opposite direction

and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the

petitioner and his relative fell down and sustained grievous injuries.

                                  2                                      RRN,J
                                                         MACMA No.103 of 2014

Therefore to cover the loss incurred, he laid the claim against the

respondents seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-.

4. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd

respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations, and

contended that the accident occurred as a result of the rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 and 2

and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of respondent

No.2, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B-1 was marked.

6. After considering the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by granting Rs.70,502/-

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

Tribunal erred in awarding meagre compensation without

considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, the evidence of

PW2, the loss of earning capacity due to permanent partial disability

and future medical expenses. He further contended that the income 3 RRN,J MACMA No.103 of 2014

of the petitioner is to be taken on the lower side and compensation

awarded under various heads is meagre and prayed to enhance the

same by allowing the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent would contend that the Tribunal was justified in passing

the impugned award even in the absence of the income proof of the

petitioner and also awarded a sufficient amount. Accordingly,

prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. The Tribunal fixed the notional income of the petitioner at

Rs.3,000/- per month in the absence of income proof. However, this

Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at

Rs.4,500/- p.m. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ramchandrappa vs Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

Insurance Co. Ltd.1. The contention of the petitioner that he

suffered permanent partial disablement is rejected as the evidence of

PW-2 clearly reveals that the petitioner can do his original work as

usual. As such, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was

justified in not awarding compensation under the head of

disability/loss of future earning capacity including the fact that no

1( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 4 RRN,J MACMA No.103 of 2014

disability certificate is filed. Thus the loss of earnings could be

calculated for two months i.e Rs.4,500/- x 2 = Rs.9,000/- instead of

Rs.6,000/-. Despite PW-2 deposing that the petitioner would incur

about Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- towards future operation, the

Tribunal did not award any amount and this Court is inclined to

award Rs.50,000/- for the same.

11. The petitioner was awarded Rs.70,502/- towards

compensation and the same is dealt with by this Court in the

following manner:

Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by the Tribunal this Court

Injuries Nil Rs.20,000/-

           Medical bills            Rs.52,502/-            Rs.52,502/-

        Extra nourishment               Nil                Rs.5,000/-

         Future operation               Nil               Rs. 50,000/-

         Loss of earnings           Rs.6,000/-             Rs.9,000/-

        Pain and suffering          Rs.10,000/-           Rs. 20,000/-

          Transportation            Rs.2,000/-             Rs. 3,000/-

        Attendant charges               Nil                Rs.3,000/-

               Total                Rs.70,502/-          Rs.1,62,502/-
                                 5                                       RRN,J
                                                         MACMA No.103 of 2014

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by

enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.70,502/- to Rs.1,62,502/- (One Lakh, Sixty Two thousand, Five

hundred and Two Rupees only) with 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. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to

withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.