Telangana High Court

Thippareddy Chaitanya Reddy vs Ganta Aruna And Another on 25 April, 2025

                                 1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                   M.A.C.M.A.NO.86 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order

and Decree dated 16.11.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2016 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District

Judge, Khammam (for short "the Tribunal").

2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to

as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunal is that on

04.04.2016 the petitioner was returning from Bhadrachalam to

Ashwapuram on his motorbike and on the way when he reached

Seetharampuram Village, the driver of the Tata Ace bearing No.AP-

20TB-2197 has driven the van in a rash and negligent manner at a

high speed and dashed against the motor bike, due to which the

petitioner fell down and sustained grievous injuries, resulting in

amputation of right toe, and also several other fractures. He

underwent treatment by incurring huge medical expenses.

Therefore, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 has filed counter denying the manner

of accident and also the age, avocation and income of the ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

petitioner. He further contended that the driver of the van was

holding a valid driving license and thus, only the respondent No.2

would be liable to pay the compensation if any.

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the age,

avocation and income of the petitioner. He further contended that

the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the

petitioner and they further disputed the validity of driving license

of the driver of the crime vehicle.

6. Based on the above pleadings, the tribunal has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle i.e., Tata Ace bearing No.AP-20TB-2197, occurred on 04.04.2016 ?

2. Whether the claim petitioner is entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what amount and from whom ?

3. To what relief ?

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On behalf of the respondents, RW1

was examined and Exs.B1 and B2 were marked.

8. Based on the evidence adduced before it, the Tribunal has

granted a compensation of Rs.2,52,000/-. Aggrieved by the said

Order and Decree dated 16.11.2019, the present appeal is filed by

the claim petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation.

ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

9. Heard the submission of Sri G. Ravi Chandra Shekar,

learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar,

learned counsel for the respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

Tribunal has failed to appreciate the fact of permanent disability

sustained by the petitioner to the extent of 25% and that it has

taken only 2% towards the loss of earnings of the petitioner. He

further argued that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate

Ex.A8/Salary Certificate of the petitioner and has taken his income

to be very low as Rs.10,000/-. He further argued that the trial

Court has not considered all the medical bills and has awarded

very low amount towards medical expenses. He therefore, prayed to

enhance the compensation.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand

has submitted that no proof of income is filed by the petitioner and

that in the absence of proof, the trial Court has in fact rightly

taken the earnings to be Rs.10,000/-. He further argued that loss

of earning capacity as assessed by the Tribunal is 2% also is

justified. He therefore, prayed to uphold the order and decree of the

trial Court.

ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

12. Based on the above rival submission, this Court frames the

following points for determination:-

1. Whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so, to what extent?

2. Whether the order and decree of the Tribunal need any interference?

3. To what relief?

13. Point No.1:

a) A perusal of Ex.A3/Medical Certificate reveals that the

petitioner has sustained fracture of phalanx and also amputation

of right big toe and little toe and also there is a swelling over the

dorsal aspect of right foot, loss of skin and other multiple injuries

all over the body. It further shows that he was shifted to Dr.PNVSV

Prasad Hospital, Khammam and from there to KIMS Hospital for

better treatment.

b) PW2/Dr. Divakar Reddy deposed that the injured was

admitted in their hospital on 05.04.2015 and was discharged on

13.04.2015 and that he was treated for his fractures in their

hospital.

c) PW3/Dr.P. Durga Suresh is a Plastic Suregon and his

evidence reveals that the petitioner was operated and right great

toe amputation was done outside the raw area for which skin

grafting was done in the month of May, 2015 and that he charged ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

Rs.10,000/- for the same and the petitioner incurred medical bills

of Rs.5,679/- for the said treatment.

d) Thus, it is revealed that the petitioner sustained grievous

injuries and fractures on the toes, which resulted in the

amputation of two toes. Thus it involves a lot of pain and suffering

for which an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded.

e) The petitioner is stated to be working as A/c Mechanic in LG

Customer Service Centre and used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month.

The petitioner has filed Ex.A8/Salary Certificate.

f) In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram

Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1, the apex Court has held

that in the absence of any proof of income with regard to a

labourer, Rs.4,500/- per month can be safely taken as the income.

But, in the present case, a perusal of Ex.A8 reveals that the

petitioner was working as AC Mechanic in LG Customer Service

Centre in Sriven Techno Services, Gandhi Chowk, Khammam. No

person was examined to prove the Ex.A8. It is borne out by record

that the petitioner's age is 26 years as on the date of the accident

and was an able bodied person prior to the accident. Therefore, on

a reasonable hypothesis, his income is taken as Rs.10,000/- per

month which appears to be justified . It is the common knowledge

(2011) 12 SCC 236 ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

that without reasonable physical fitness, one cannot attend to

his/her normal work. In the light of the evidence in regard to the

injuries sustained by the petitioner and treatment received by him

and also taking into consideration the time required for the injuries

to heal, it is reasonable to accept that he was out of work for at-

least about six months. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.60,000/-

(10,000/- x 6) is awarded as compensation towards loss of

earnings.

g) With regard to the medical expenses, he has filed medical

bills under Ex.A4. Though the petitioner has filed several medical

bills, the bill issued by St. Teresa's Hospital on 13.04.2015 is to an

extent of Rs.1,16,670/, and adding the other bills, an amount of

Rs.1,39,790/- is awarded towards medical expenses by the

Tribunal and the same is rounded up to Rs.1,40,000/-. In addition

to that the petitioner must have incurred expenses towards extra

nourishment, attendant and incidental expenditure. Therefore, an

additional amount of Rs.60,000/- is awarded towards the said

expenses and thus an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (1,40,000 +

60,000) is awarded under the head "hospital, medical expenses,

transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses."

ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

h) In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar 2, the Apex Court has

observed that the percentage of disability will be assessed by a

Doctor and the Doctor can also speak about the disability in

relation to the whole body, but the loss of earning capacity needs

to be assessed by the Tribunal. Ex.A9 is the Disability Certificate.

A perusal of Ex.A9 is that he sustained 25% of disability towards

right lower limb. PW4 is the Doctor who issued Ex.A9 and he

deposed with regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner as

25% to the right foot. It is mentioned that his right great toe and

5th toe at the level of metatarsopalangeal joint was amputated.

Thus, scaling down the disability from 25% to the right foot to that

of whole body would be around 10% and the loss of earnings is

assessed to be around 5%.

i) The age of the petitioner as mentioned in the disability

certificate is '26' years as on 28.10.2016. In the light of Sarla

Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 3 the multiplier that has

to be applied for his age is '17. Therefore, applying the said

multiplier the compensation for loss of future earnings would be

(10,000 + 4000) = 14,000 x 12 = 1,68,000/- x 5/100 = (8,400 x17)

= 1,42,800/-.

2011 (10 SCC 343

2009 (6) SCC 121 ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

j) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

SI.N Name of the heads Awarded by this Court o. Rs.

1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, 1,00,000/-

shock, Pain and suffering

2. Compensation under the heads 2,00,000/-

hospital, medical transport, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses

2. Compensation for loss of earnings (past 60,000/-

six months) (10,000 x 6)

3. Compensation for loss of future 1,42,800/-

             earnings due to disability
             Total                                                      5,02,800/-



k)          Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is

entitled to is calculated as Rs.5,02,800/- while the Tribunal has

awarded Rs.2,52,000/- Therefore, it is held that the petitioners are

entitled for enhancement of compensation.

Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

14. POINT NO.2:

In view of the finding arrived at point No.1, it is held that the

order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modified with

regard to the quantum of compensation, therefore, the

compensation granted by the Tribunal to the extent of

Rs.2,52,000/- is enhanced to Rs.5,02,800/-.

Point No.2 is answered accordingly.

ETD,J MACMA No.86_2021

15. POINT NO.3:

In the result, the MACMA filed by the claim petitioner is

partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated 16.11.2019

in M.V.O.P.No.482 of 2016 passed by the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge, Khammam,

enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,52,000/- to Rs.5,02,800/-

and the enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @

7.5 % per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited.

The petitioner shall pay the deficit Court fee. Respondent

No.2/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation

amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from

the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after deducting the

amount if any already deposited. On such deposit, the petitioner is

entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any

security. The judgment copy shall be made available subject to the

payment of deficit Court fee by the petitioner. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

_________________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA