Telangana High Court
Ch.Venkata Rama Raju vs N.Raghavender Reddy on 1 August, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.965 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
-
This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner
aggrieved by the order, dated 27.03.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2461
of 2015 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for
short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein an amount of Rs.73,446/- is awarded in
a claim petition filed seeking Rs.11,00,000/- from the respondents
jointly and severally by the appellant due to the injuries suffered by
him in a road traffic accident.
2. Heard both sides. Perused the record.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.05.2015 at about
7:55 A.M. when the appellant was going along with his relative as a
pillion rider on a Honda Activa motorcycle bearing No.AP28CA 8659
from Pragathi Nagar to KPHB Colony on the way when they reached
near Nizampet X roads, one RTC hired bus bearing No.TS15 UA 2525
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the
appellant motorcycle from back side, as a result, the appellant fell
down and sustained head injury with dislocation of C5-C6, injury to
forehead and blunt injuries all over the body. Due to the loss
incurred for the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed
claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- from the
respondents jointly and severally.
4. In support of the claim petition, the appellant got examined
P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. Respondent No.3 got
marked Ex.B1-copy of insurance policy. Upon examining the
evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.73,446/- with interest at 6% per annum leading to filing of the
present appeal.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant pleaded that his monthly
income is Rs.15,000/-, whereas the Tribunal has considered only
Rs.5,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal awarded meager
compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings instead of
Rs.90,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.3,00,000/-
towards loss of amenities, shock and mental agony. Further, the
Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
suffering, but awarded only Rs.5,000/- and no amount was awarded
towards permanent disability and lastly, the interest awarded is 6%
per annum instead of 9%.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal erred
in not considering the income of the appellant at Rs.15,000/- per
month and that compensation is not awarded towards permanent
disability, loss of earnings, pain and suffering, etc as per established
guidelines, whereas according to the learned counsel for respondent
No.3, the Tribunal has awarded just and fair compensation.
7. A perusal of the record shows that as per FIR marked under
Ex.A1 and charge sheet marked under Ex.A2, the appellant is holding
a private job. A private job cannot be equated with a labourer's job
which is on the basis of daily wages and therefore, legal ratio laid
down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the
case of Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance
Insurance Company Limited 1, cannot be applied. When a coolie
was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, a private job holder might have
earned Rs.10,000/- per month in the year 2015. As such, the
notional monthly income of a private job holder in the absence of
evidence is taken at Rs.10,000/- per month. So, the appellant is
entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings for a
period of one month instead of Rs.5,000/-. As per injury certificate,
the appellant sustained grievous injury. Therefore, Rs.25,000/- is
awarded towards pain and suffering for the grievous injury instead of
Rs.5,000/-.
8. As per the evidence of P.W.2, the appellant is entitled to
payment of an amount of Rs.21,509/- towards medical bills issued
by Remedi Hospital, Kukatpally. The appellant is also entitled for an
amount of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/-
(2011) 13 SCC 236
towards transportation. None is examined to prove the percentage of
disability if any suffered by the appellant and therefore, no
compensation can be awarded on the said count. However, the
appellant suffered injury to the spinal card at C5-C6, hence,
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards physical inconvenience caused to
the appellant for the rest of his life. In total, the appellant is entitled
to an amount of Rs.1,71,509/- towards compensation.
9. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.73,446/- to
Rs.1,71,509/- with interest @ 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 as apportioned by
the Tribunal, without furnishing any security. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 01.08.2025
ssp
