Telangana High Court
T.Ramesh Babu vs G.E.Power Control on 15 July, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.1311 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant who is the petitioner in the Court below met
with an accident on 02.01.2006 while he was going on a motor
cycle. When he reached Flyover at Harihara Kala Bhavan, the
offending vehicle which is the car bearing No.AP 10 AC 5201 came
in a rash and negligent manner and hit him at high speed
resulting in the appellant falling down and sustaining injuries. He
spent huge amounts towards medical expenses and also suffered
60% permanent disability.
2. The appellant made claim for Rs.13 lakhs before the
Tribunal, however, the Tribunal concluded that an amount of Rs.4
lakhs would meet the ends of justice. Aggrieved by the said
compensation, present appeal is filed seeking enhancement.
3. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the Tribunal had committed an error in not granting
compensation adequate to the disability. Though the Court below
found that as deposed by PW2, the permanent disability was
assessed at 60% and certificate Ex.A7 was issued, however, the
Court had not granted amount separately for the disability. In the
said circumstances, the compensation had to be granted in
accordance with Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in
National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and
others 1.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
insurance company would submit that the compensation granted
by the Court below is sufficient and reasonable and requires no
interference. In fact, for each grievous injury Rs.50,000/- was
granted which is on the higher side. Further, all the aspects were
also considered while granting compensation. Accordingly, the
finding of the Tribunal cannot be interfered with and grant of
compensation cannot be enhanced.
5. Admittedly, the appellant received injuries and he was
disabled at 60%. PW2-doctor had treated him and also issued
disability certificate-Ex.A7. In the said circumstances, this Court
deems it appropriate to grant compensation towards loss of future
earnings taking the disability @ 60% into consideration.
6. Though, the petitioner claimed that he was earning
Rs.8,500/- per month at the time of accident, this Court deems it
appropriate to take the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,500/-. The
(2017) 16 SCC 680
petitioner is aged 32 years at the time of accident, as such in view
of the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in
Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 the relevant
multiplier is '16'. Then the loss of future earnings comes to
Rs.7,48,800/-(6,500 x 12 x 16 x 60/100).
7. Since the petitioner underwent treatment for nine months as
per Ex.A18-leave proceedings, loss of earnings during treatment
comes to Rs.58,500/- (6,500 x 9).
8. However, the amounts, Rs.75,000/- towards medical
expenses and cost of implants, Rs.50,000/- towards future
medical expenses, Rs.25,000/- towards transportation, attendant
and extra nourishment charges, granted by the Tribunal are
maintained.
9. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.9,57,300/- (7,48,800 + 58,500 + 75,000 + 50,000 + 25,000)
and the same is accordingly awarded.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing
compensation from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.9,57,300/- payable by
both respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, jointly and severally with
(2009) 6 SCC 121
interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced compensation from the date of
petition till realization. The amount shall be deposited within 6
weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such
deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount
without furnishing any security.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 15.07.2024
tk
