Telangana High Court
Ganji Prabhakar vs T.Sudhakar Reddy on 13 March, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.No.3128 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/injured aggrieved
by the compensation granted by the Tribunal in OP.NO.37 of
2006, dated 04.02.2009 and to enhance the same.
2. The 1st respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and
the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle.
3. The case of the appellant-Injured is that on 22.08.2004, at
about 4.30 p.m. while the petitioner was proceeding on his
motorcycle bearing No.AP 22 E 663 from Sadagod village to
Nagarkurnool along with his friend, one Jeep bearing No.AP 22U
3591 came behind with high speed, in rash and negligent manner,
dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, the petitioner fell
down on the ground into ditch and sustained bleeding injuries on
his head and other multiple injuries and became unconscious.
Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital,
Nagarkurnool and from there to Sai Krishna Super Speciality
Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda.
4. During trial, the Tribunal examined appellant/injured
himself as PW1 and also PW2 to PW5. Exs.A1 to A20 were marked
on behalf of the claimant. Exs.X1 and C1 were also marked. On
behalf of respondents no oral evidence is adduced but copy of the
insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. The Tribunal after
considering the evidence on record and documents, came to the
conclusion that the claimant is entitled to compensation of
Rs.4,50,000/- payable by both the respondents, jointly and
severally, together with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of
petition till the date of realisation.
5. Aggrieved by compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- though the
claimant claimed Rs.15 lakhs, present appeal was filed.
6. Heard both sides.
7. The claimant was a practicing advocate and having 10 years
standing in the Bar when he met with the accident. The accident
and the injuries received by the petitioner are not in dispute.
8. The claim before the Tribunal that the claimant was earning
Rs.15,000/- per month and he had standing of ten years in the
Bar was not accepted by the Tribunal. However, Tribunal found
that since there was no documentary proof, the income can be
considered as Rs.5,000/-.
9. An Advocate who was having ten years practice, it cannot be
state that the income would be Rs.5,000/-. If the advocate was
practicing since 10 years, he would not have continued for so long
without adequate income. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate
to consider the income of the Advocate at Rs.10,000/- per month.
10. Further, PW2 and PW4 who are the doctors examined on
behalf of claimant, specifically stated that there was 30% disability
due to loss of vision and speech. Both the vision and ability to
speak are the basic requirements of a practicing advocate. When
30% of vision is lost and speaking ability, the permanent disability
can be considered as 30%.
11. Therefore the loss of future income on account of 30%
disability comes to Rs.8,06,400/-.
Actual income of the claimant Rs.10,000 p.m.
Add: Future prospects (40%) Rs. 4,000
____________
Loss of income per month Rs.14,000/-
Since the petitioner is aged 39 years the relevant multiplier '16'.
Loss of earnings due to 30% disability
= 14,000 x 12 x 30/100 x 16
= 8,06,400/-.
12. Further, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards
transportation, pain and suffering, and extra nourishment is
enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, 25,000/- and 30,000/- respectively.
Medical expenses of Rs.1,43,000/- granted by the Tribunal remain
unaltered.
13. The appellant/injured is also entitled to Rs.25,000/-
towards loss of amenities of life.
14. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.10,39,400/-
Loss of earnings due to 30% disability Rs. 8,06,400
Transportation Rs. 10,000
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
Extra nourishment Rs. 30,000
Medical expenses Rs. 1,43,000
Loss of amenities of life Rs. 25,000
_____________
Rs.10,39,400/-
_____________
15. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.10,39,400/- with proportionate costs and
interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of
realisation payable by both the respondents jointly and severally.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Dt. 13.03.2024
tk
