Telangana High Court
Abdul Sattar , Bablu vs The Managing Director And Another on 2 August, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2238 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award and decree dated
12.07.2010, in O.P.No.1227 of 2008 on the file of learned V
Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Mahila Court,
Hyderabad the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of
the compensation amount.
2. Heard. Perused the record.
3. According to the appellant/claimant, on 06.05.2008, while
he was going on his motor cycle, the offending vehicle which is a RTC
Bus, came in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle,
due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained fracture of Grade
I open left humerus with 1/3rd of radial (N) palsy, fracture of left leg
and other grievous injuries all over the body.
4. The manner in which the accident has taken place and the
liability are not in dispute.
5. The Doctor who was examined as PW-2 gave conservative
treatment by examining the petitioner on 02.07.2009. According to
him, the petitioner suffered with stiffness of left shoulder joint and
elbow. He was facing great difficulty in lifting weight and moving the
hand and he estimated 30% partial disability. Ex.A6 - Disability
Certificate was given to that effect. However, during the
cross-examination, he stated that it was possible to reduce disability
from 30% to less percentage.
6. The learned Tribunal Judge found that since he was not
treated in the Rajya Laxmi Hospital where PW-2 worked, his evidence
regarding disability cannot be accepted. Though the petitioner was
initially treated in Osmania General Hospital, the disability certificate
was not taken from the Medical Board of the said Hospital.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2023,
seeking enhancement of the original claim in O.P.No.1227 of 2008
from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.6,26,560/- by permitting the petitioner to
amend the Section of law from 163(A) to 166 of Motor Vehicles Act.
The said application was allowed by this Court on 08.09.2023.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the
judgments of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad in Syed Saleem vs. Abdul Shukur and another 1 and
Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another 2 and argued that a
Surgeon is competent to give medical certificate regarding disability
and necessarily need not be from the Doctor who treated the injured.
He also placed reliance on the Judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Kajal vs. Jagdish Chand and others 3 and Muhammed vs.
1 2007 (1) ALD 382
2 2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB)
3 2020(2) ALD 235 (SC)
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 4 and Judgment of the
High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Zahura Begum vs.
V.Venkata Ramana and others 5 and argued that future prospects
shall be considered while granting compensation.
9. PW.2-Doctor is competent Surgeon who had assessed the
disability at 30%, however in his cross-examination, he stated that
the disability can even be reduced. However, keeping in view that the
appellant was suffering with failure of implant and malunion of
L-humerus and also suffering with stiffness of left shoulder joint and
elbow, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the disability as
20%.
10. According to the appellant/claimant, he was earning an
amount of Rs.4,500/- per month, working as a driver. As the
appellant was aged about 25 years, future prospects @ 40% has to be
considered. Hence, the monthly income of the appellant comes to
Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4500+Rs.1800). In view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 6, as the appellant was aged about 25 years, the
appropriate multiplier would be '18' and the disability of the claimant
is taken as 20%. Under the head of loss of future earnings due to
disability, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.2,72,160/-
4 2023 ACJ 894
5 2023 ACJ 1219
6 2009(6) SCC 121
(6,300x12x18x20%). The appellant is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- for
one fracture injury, Rs.30,000/- towards pain, suffering and loss of
amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5,000/-
towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards removal of implant,
Rs.5,000/- towards special diet, Rs.3,000/- towards transportation
and Rs.2,000/- towards damages to clothes. Thus, in total the
appellant is entitled to Rs.3,67,160/-
(2,72,160+25,000+30,000+10,000+5,000+15,000+5,000+3,000+2,00
0).
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.50,000 /- to Rs.3,67,160/-. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee.
Except the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall
remain same on all other aspects.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 02.08.2024
sa
