Telangana High Court
Smt. N. Balamani vs Nabilal Dadabhai Inamdar on 16 October, 2023
Bench: P.Sam Koshy, Laxmi Narayana Alishetty
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
AND
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1097 of 2023
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)
The present appeal is filed by the appellant / claimant
assailing the judgment and decree in M.V.O.P.No.848 of 2010,
dated 11.02.2015, passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, - cum - III Additional
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), wherein the Tribunal awarded compensation of
₹.28,04,000/- to the appellant along with interest @ 7.5 % per
annum from the date of the petition.
2. Heard Mr. C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for
the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 04.05.2009, when
the appellant was traveling in a car along with her family
members, a lorry bearing registration No.MH-13-G-868 came in
a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and hit
the car. As a result, the appellant suffered grievous head
injuries and other injuries on the body rendering her 100%
'disabled' as her right side has gone completely paralyzed. The
appellant is totally bed-ridden and as per the Doctor's evidence,
the appellant is only able to follow certain simple commands,
and even to carry out day-to-day activity she is totally dependent
on others.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant primarily challenged the
income tax assessed by the Tribunal while quantifying the
compensation. The challenge also is to the deductions made by
the Tribunal while assessing the income tax and ignoring the
actual income tax return filed by the appellant. He further
contended that even the future prospects has not been taken
care of by the Tribunal and that the compensation awarded
under the head 'Pain and Suffering' while considering the nature
of injuries is on the lower side, and that the appellant ought to
have also been provided some compensation towards future
medical assistance and the recurring expenses which the family
is incurring for engagement of an helper to attend to needs of
the appellant.
5. Perusal of the record would further show that the income
tax return which was produced before the Court below and
marked as Exs.A.9 and 10 reveal that ₹.3 lakhs was the gross
income reflected in those documents. The appellant is said to
have been working as an 'Administrative Officer' of one of the
schools being run at Hyderabad. PW.5, the Chairman of the said
School, himself has deposed that both in respect of employee as
also in respect of the salary part, the same were not questioned
by the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company at all.
6. In the said backdrop, we proceed to decide as to whether
the Tribunal was justified in assessing the income of the
appellant, and rounding it off to ₹.1,35,000/-. The income tax
return submitted by the appellant reflected the gross annual
income to be ₹.3 lakhs, i.e., ₹.25,000 per month. If 10% is
deducted towards T.D.S., the annual gross income would come
to ₹.2,70,000/-. Given the evidence of PW.5, i.e., the Chairman
of the said School, accepting that the appellant was an employee
of the School as A.O. and was earning monthly salary of
₹.25,000/- per month, we are of the considered opinion that the
Tribunal has erred in not considering this aspect and reducing
the income of the appellant to ₹.1,35,000/-. Therefore, the same
is set aside. We proceed to assess the gross annual income of
the appellant at ₹.2,70,000/-, after deduction of T.D.S. As per
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 1, we proceed to calculate
future prospects @ 40% on ₹.2,70,000/- that would come to
(2017) 16 SCC 680
₹.1,08,000/-. Therefore, the total income of the appellant would
come to ₹.2,70,000 + ₹.1,08,000, that is ₹.3,78,000.
7. Further, from the evidence of PW.2, i.e., the Doctor, who
deposed and stated that the appellant is 100% dependent for
day to day activity so far as the gravity of the injury is
concerned, the appellant is totally bed-ridden and is able to
receive only a few commands. Moreover, the Doctor has further
also deposed to the extent that appellant is dependent 100% for
the day to day needs. In the said backdrop, we do not have the
slightest of hesitation in holding that the appellant in the instant
case suffers from 100% disability. In the said circumstances, we
take ₹.3,78,000/- as 'total income' for quantifying the
compensation, which if multiplied by applying the multiplier of
'16', as the age of the appellant was 38 years at the time of
accident, it would come to ₹.60,48,000/-. Therefore, the amount
of compensation awarded towards disability stands at
₹.60,48,000/-.
8. As regards the amount awarded under the head 'Pain and
Suffering' and also considering the medical condition as well as
the physical state of affairs of the appellant, this Court finds that
the amount awarded towards 'Pain and Suffering' by the
Tribunal is on a lower side. Therefore, the amount awarded
towards 'Pain and Suffering' by the Tribunal is enhanced to
₹.5,00,000/-.
9. In view of above, the total compensation now payable to
the appellant stands modified as under :
Sl.No. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
01. Pain and Suffering ₹.5,00,000/-
02. Expenditure towards ₹.15,59,000/-
treatment
03. Loss of earnings ₹.65,000/-
04. Disability ₹.60,48,000/-
TOTAL :: ₹.81,72,000/-
10. Thus, ₹.81,72,000/-is awarded as compensation to the
appellant. The rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal would
remain intact.
11. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in
this appeal, shall stand closed.
__________________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
___________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J
Date : 16.10.2023
Ndr
