Telangana High Court
R. Amarnath Reddy R/O Imamguda, ... vs Mohd. Aijaz Ahmed And Another on 12 February, 2024
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
*****
MACMA No.410 OF 2006
Between:
R. Amarnath Reddy S/o Chandra Sekhara Reddy
Aged 29 yeras, Occ: Software Engineer,
R/o Imamguda, Jayaprakashnagar, Hyderabad
... Appellant
And
1. Mohd. Aijaz Ahmed S/o. not known, aged major
R/o 7-1-2-632/118, Bapunagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyd.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its
Divisional Manager, DO-IV, 6-2-976,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad
... Respondents
DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 12.02.2024
Submitted for approval.
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
1 Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see Yes/No
the Judgments?
2 Whether the copies of judgment
may be marked to Law Yes/No
Reporters/Journals
3 Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship
wish to see the fair copy of the Yes/No
Judgment?
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
3
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. SURENDER
+ MACMA No.410 of 2006
% Dated 12.02.2024
# R. Amarnath Reddy S/o Chandra Sekhara Reddy
Aged 29 yeras, Occ: Software Engineer,
R/o Imamguda, Jayaprakashnagar, Hyderabad
... Appellant
And
1. Mohd. Aijaz Ahmed S/o. not known, aged major
R/o 7-1-2-632/118, Bapunagar, S.R.Nagar, Hyd.
2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its
Divisional Manager, DO-IV, 6-2-976,
Khairatabad, Hyderabad
! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Dhanunjaya Reddy
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri Mohammed Ismail
^ Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Smt. I. Maamu Vani
>HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred Nil
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
4
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.410 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the II
Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2353 of
2001 on 04.01.2005.
2. Heard Sri K. Dhanunjaya Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1/owner of the car and Smt. I. Maamu Vani,
learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company.
3. The appellant was involved in a road accident, on
24.07.2001 at mid night, while he was proceeding on his two
wheeler near Prakashnagar Fly Over Bridge along with his friend,
one Ambassador car came in opposite direction and hit the two
wheeler, resulting in injuries. A case vide Crime No.290 of 2001
for the offence under Section 338 of IPC was registered by the PS
Begumpet, Hyderabad against the car driver.
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
4. The claim application was made by the claimant in
October, 2001. The learned Trial Court having considered the
evidence on record has granted total compensation of
Rs.1,22,800/- under different heads with interest @ 9% per annum
from the date of filing of petition till the date of deposit of amount
into the Court.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the
claimant was working as a Software Engineer and earning an
amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, but the Trial Court had taken the
monthly income at Rs.1,000/- while computing the disability. It is
further submitted that the Trial Court failed to take into
consideration the Disability Certificate/Ex.A5 and granted
unreasonable compensation of Rs.40,800/- under the head of
disability. He submits that the Trial Court has failed to take into
consideration the injuries that were sustained by the claimant and
failed to grant any amount for the same. It is submitted that the
Trial Court has granted the compensation amount of Rs.1,22,800/-
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
against the claimed amount of Rs.3,50,000/- and hence, prayed for
re-assessment and to award just compensation.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent insurance company as well respondent/owner of the
car submits that the compensation that was awarded by the Trial
Court is just and proper.
7. Admittedly, there is no dispute about the fact that the
claimant has sustained injuries in the accident. The learned Trial
Judge found that though the claimant has produced Ex.A8/Salary
Certificate issued by M/s. Interactive Education Software
Systems, the said certificate was not proved by producing any oral
or documentary evidence in support of the same and accordingly,
an amount of Rs.1,000/- was considered as monthly income.
8. The only ground that is raised by the appellant is that
Ex.A8 was marked in the Trial Court without objection.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant
has completed MCA in MVJ College of Engineering and the study
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
certificate was not produced before the Trial Court since there was
no dispute regarding the salary certificate/Ex.A8. The Trial Court
erred in considering the income of the appellant as that a daily
wage labourer at Rs.1,000/- per month.
9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the
insurance company would submit that the burden lies on the
claimant to prove the salary certificate/Ex.A8. Mere marking of
salary certificate will not dispense the burden to prove it. The
Trial Court has rightly considered the income of the claimant as
Rs.1,000/- per month which can be equated to a daily wage
labourer.
10. From the inception, when the claim application was made
in October, 2001, it has been specifically stated by the claimant
that he is a graduate and as on the date of accident, he was
working as a Software Engineer in M/s. Interactive Education
Software Systems and earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per
month.
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
11. Ex.A8/Salary certificate was marked in support of the
claim that the claimant was working with the said Firm and was
drawing monthly salary of Rs.5,000/-. During the course of cross
examination of the claimant as PW1, no suggestion was made to
him that a false salary certificate is filed or that he was not
working with the said firm. In the said background, it is not the
case of the Insurance company that Ex.A8 was fabricated for the
purpose of the claim. More particularly, when the contention of
the appellant from the beginning is that he was a Graduate and
earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, this Court deems it
appropriate to set aside the finding of the Trial Court to the extent
of assessing the income of the appellant at Rs.1,000/- per month
and consider the monthly income at Rs.5,000/-.
12. As per the evidence on record, the Trial Court has
considered the disability at 20%. Since, this court has taken the
income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month, as per his age i.e.
25 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
would be '17'. Hence, the claimant is entitled Rs.2,04,000/-
(Rs.60,000X17X20/100) for loss of future income due to disability.
13. As far as the compensation that was granted under the
other heads is concerned, the Trial Court has rightly granted the
same as per the evidence on record and this Court is not inclined
to interfere with the said findings.
14. In the light of the above discussion, the claimant is
entitled to the following compensation under different heads:
Compensation Compensation
Head awarded by awarded by
the Trial Court this Court
Fractures Rs.45,000/- Rs.45,000/-
Pain and sufferings Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
and extra
nourishment
Transportation Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/-
Loss of future income Rs.40,800/- Rs.2,04,000/-
due to disability
Medical bills Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Medical attendant Rs.1,000/- Rs.1,000/-
Total Rs.1,22,800/- Rs.2,86,000/-
KS, J
MACMA_410_2006
15. In the result, the Motor Accident Miscellaneous Appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by
the Trial Court from Rs.1,22,800/- to Rs.2,86,000/- as hereunder:
(a) The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The respondent/insurance company shall deposit the
amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of judgment. On such deposit, claimant is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 12.02.2024
gvl
