Telangana High Court
Syed Aleem, Hyd vs Gaddam Nitin Albert, Hyd And Ano on 11 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A No.2002 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
1. The appellant-claimant filed this appeal against the Order
and Decree dated 26.06.2010 in O.P.No.1196 of 2008 on the file
of the XI Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court,
Hyderabad, where under the Tribunal granted an amount of
Rs.77,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5%
per annum as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of
the injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor vehicle
accident occurred on 02.01.2007.
2. The manner of accident and the injuries sustained by the
appellant-claimant are not in dispute and the appellant
challenged the impugned award only on the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is
not inclined to go into other details other than the quantum of
compensation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and
the learned counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance Company.
4. The claimant-appellant received injuries on account of an
accident on 02.01.2007, while he was going on the road, the
offending vehicle which is a Santro car hit him resulting in
sustaining injuries.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
submit that the Doctor had come before the Court and stated
that there is 10-15% disability for which 15% has to be
considered as disability. He relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna And Others vs.
Divisional Manager And Another 1 wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that when once a qualified Doctor assesses
disability, the same has to be considered. In the said case, the
Workmen Compensation Commissioner passed order based on
the certificate issued by the Doctor. The High Court set aside
the finding of the Commissioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
set aside the finding of the High Court that certificate cannot be
made basis to grant compensation and restored the finding of
the Commissioner. He also relied on another judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Muhammed @ Kunjumuhammed
vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., & Ors 2 and sought to
grant future prospects for 15% disability.
(2017) 1 SCC 45
2022 Lawsuit (SC) 1524
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
Insurance Company relied on the judgment of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.3087 of 2004. In the said case, the
disability certificate was issued by the Doctor, however, he
admitted that there is a Medical Board in the Government
Hospital in Nizamabad which was constituted for the purpose of
issuing disability certificate, since no such certificate was taken
from the Medical Board, this Court had refused to rely on the
disability certificate.
7. The Doctor was examined as P.W.2 who had treated the
claimant, which is not in dispute. However, the only dispute
raised by the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company is
that the claimant ought to have approached the Medical Board
and the deposition given by the Doctor in the Court regarding
disability cannot be made basis to grant compensation.
8. It is not the case of the Insurance Company that the
Doctor had not treated the victim nor it is their case that he is
not a qualified Orthopedician. In the said circumstances, when
the Doctor who had treated the claimant had come before the
Court and assessed disability at 10-15%, such evidence and
certification by the Doctor in the Court can also be taken into
consideration while granting compensation. Accordingly,
disability of 10% as stated by the Doctor can be considered
while granting compensation.
9. The Tribunal erroneously fixed the income of the deceased
at Rs.1,500/- per month and the same is very low. As such, I
am inclined to fix the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per
month notionally. Apart from the same, the appellant is entitled
to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the ratio
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 3. Thus, the monthly income of the
deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-p.m.(4,500/-+1,800/-).
Considering disability at 10% and applying appropriate
multiplier '18', the amount comes to Rs.1,36,080/-
(6300x10%x12x18).
10. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced under various
heads as follows:
Awarded by Awarded by
Sl.No. Name of Head Tribunal this Court
01. Disability /- Rs.1,36,080/-
(10% disability)
02. Medical bills Rs.31,000/- Rs.67,385/-
03. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- Rs.20,000/-
04. Attendant charges /- Rs.5,000/-
05. Transport charges Rs.4,000/- Rs.15,000/-
06. Extra nourishment Rs.3,000/- Rs.15,000/-
07. Loss of earnings Rs.9,000/- Rs.31,500/-
08. Removal of Rs.10,000/- Rs.15,000/-
2017(6) ALD 170 (SC)
implants/surgery
09. Future medical /- Rs.15,000/-
expenses
Rs.77,000/- Rs.3,19,965/-
TOTAL
11. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.77,000/- to Rs.3,19,965/-. 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 : 11.03.2024
dv
