Telangana High Court
T.Shankar vs Kesineni Srinivas on 7 August, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1035 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused
the entire record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by
the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in
M.V.O.P.No.1277 of 2016, dated 18.05.2023, wherein the claim petition
filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking
compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was partly allowed awarding compensation
of Rs.1,28,900/- with interest at 7% per annum.
3. The brief facts are that the accident which lead to the filing of claim
petition had occurred on 14.01.2016 at about 07:00 AM, when the
appellant and his wife were proceeding on Activa vehicle bearing No.TS
07 EM 4722 from Kondapur to Bowenpally. When they reached South
India Shopping Mall, Kukatpally, one travel bus bearing No.AP 28 TA
9595 came in high speed and dashed the appellant's motorcycle causing
fracture of right scapula, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body.
RY,J
MACMA_1035_2023
Due to the losses and expenses incurred due to the injuries sustained in the
accident, the appellant filed claim petition seeking compensation jointly
and severally from respondent No.1-owner, respondent No.2-driver and
respondent No.3-insurer of the offending bus.
4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1
to A-8. Respondent No.3 got marked Ex.B-1 i.e., attested copy of the
insurance policy. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- leading to filing of the present
appeal.
5. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that he is entitled
to more compensation than the claimed amount, but the Tribunal awarded
meagre compensation of Rs.1,28,900/-. The appellant claimed to have
income of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal considered only
Rs.7,500/- per month. As per Ex.A-5, the disability is 15%, but the same
transforms into 40% functional disability. However, the Tribunal has
considered only 5% disability. Further, meagre compensation is awarded
towards loss of earnings, medical bills and pain and suffering. The
Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and
attendant charges. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.
RY,J
MACMA_1035_2023
6. As per the record, due to failure to prove the employment and
monthly income as a security guard working in Indian Security Force,
though, the appellant claimed his income at Rs.12,000/- per month, the
Tribunal considered the same at Rs.7,500/- per month for victim of an
accident which occurred in the year 2016. In the absence of income proof,
the notional income of the appellant working as privately employed person
is taken at Rs.7,500/- and the same is just and reasonable and same need
not be interfered with.
7. There is one grievous fracture therefore, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.25,000/- towards the said injury, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/- towards
transportation charges, Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing and
Rs.500/- towards medical expenses. The aforesaid compensation amounts
which are awarded under various counts are not interfered with.
8. The Tribunal considered the loss of income only for two months.
However, any fracture injury normally takes about four months to heal and
it may take another month for resuming normal activities. Therefore, the
compensation under the head loss of income is awarded for five months,
which comes to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.7,500/- X 5 months). No compensation is
RY,J
MACMA_1035_2023
awarded towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal. Therefore, Rs.50,000/-
is hereby awarded towards loss of amenities.
9. Coming to the aspect of disability, P.W.2- Dr. V.K.V. Prasad is
examined to prove the injuries and the disability. The said doctor deposed
that there is fracture of right scapula and the same leads to pain and
restriction of movement of right shoulder. The same results in 40% of loss
of earning capacity. The evidence of P.W.2 can be considered with respect
to medical condition, the nature of the injuries and the percentage of
disability, but not with respect to loss of earning capacity. P.W.2 is not the
competent person to depose about the loss of earning capacity. The
appellant did not examine any person to prove the avocation as security
guard and also his monthly income. Therefore, while assessing 15%
permanent partial disability for restriction of movement of right shoulder
40% of loss of earning capacity is unfounded. At best, the percentage of
physical disability can be considered for the percentage of functional
disability as well. Hence, 15% is taken to calculate the loss of earning
capacity. The age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 52 years,
as such 10% is added towards future prospects. After adding 10% of the
future prospects, the monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs.8,250/-.
Further, as per the judgment in the case of Sarla Varma v. Delhi
RY,J
MACMA_1035_2023
Transport Corporation and another1, the multiplier that applies to the
appellant is 12. The loss of income due to disability is calculated as:
Rs.8250/- X 12 X 12 X 15/100 = Rs.1,78,200/-.
10. In total the amount of compensation is calculated as 25,000/- towards
injury, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards extra
nourishment, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.1,000/- towards
damages to clothes, Rs.500/- towards medical expenses, Rs.37,500/-
towards loss of income for five months, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of
amenities and Rs.1,78,200/- towards loss of earnings due to disability,
which comes to Rs.3,20,200/-.
11. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.1,28,900/- to
Rs.3,20,200/- with interest at 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation
from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced
compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents jointly and
severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the
entire amount, without furnishing any security. The appellant shall deposit
2009 (6) SCC 121
RY,J
MACMA_1035_2023
deficit Court fee, if any. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous
Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date:07.08.2025
GVR
