Telangana High Court
J. Annapoorna vs K. Sayanna And Another on 14 February, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1864 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Ms. Nandana Sarma PVB, learned counsel representing
Sri Akkam Eshwar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Gondala
Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - owner of the offending
vehicle and Ms. T. Padmaja, learned counsel representing
Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for respondent No.2 -
Insurance Company. Perused the entire record.
2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant being
aggrieved by the award dated 03.07.2015 passed by the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) at
Nizamabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), in O.P.No.177 of 2008.
3. The claim petition i.e. O.P.No.177 of 2008 arose following the
road accident which occurred on 23.10.2007 at about 10 am when the
appellant was travelling along with others in an auto bearing No.AP-
01-V-0805 and the said auto was struck in opposite direction by
another auto bearing No.AP-01-V-5418. Following the said accident,
the appellant suffered injuries to left leg, left hand, teeth and head
and she underwent guillotine amputation during treatment. Thus,
claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2
jointly and severally.
4. Upon examining the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal answered
issue of rash and negligent driving of offending auto in favour of the
appellant and against respondents. The Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.1,57,500/- with interest at 6% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 was
directed to pay the compensation to the appellant and then recover
from the insured respondent No.1 on the basis of plea of respondent
No.2 that the driver of the offending auto was not having a valid
driving licence at the time of accident and also non-production of
driving licence by insured respondent No.1.
5. There is no dispute about the manner of accident, injuries/
disability suffered by the appellant and also liability of the
respondents.
6. With respect to quantum of compensation, the Tribunal took the
notional income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per annum and
percentage of disability as per Workmen's Compensation Act at 50%
for below knee amputation. Considering her age as 14 years, the
Tribunal has adopted multiplier '15' and granted an amount of
Rs.1,12,500/- (Rs.15,000 x 50/100 x 15) under the head of disability.
Further, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under
the head of injury, shock, pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- under
other heads such as medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment,
attendant expenses, etc. Thus, awarded total compensation of
Rs. 1,57,500/- with interest @ 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is preferred seeking just compensation on the
premise that the notional income and the expenses awarded are too
low.
7. During appeal, learned counsel for the appellant referred to
judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Master Ayush v. Branch
Manager, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another 1 and
Rushi v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2 for the guidelines to be
followed while granting compensation in injury cases. Lastly, the
learned counsel for the appellant referred to judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Kajal v. Jagdish Chand 3 for grant of compensation
in cases of the claims involving disability.
8. The accident occurred way back in the year 2007 and at that
time, the appellant herein was aged about 14 years. The notional
income of the year 2020 is not comparable to the notional income of
in the year 2007. However, the fact remains that the appellant was
(2022) 7 SCC 738
(2025) 1 SCC 635
(2020) 4 SCC 413
deprived of the compensation for more than 15 years after occurrence
of the accident. It is also to be noted that the appellant who was a
young girl aged 14 years underwent below knee amputation, which
would be a permanent disability. The Tribunal computed the
compensation for disability alone and ignored to consider the future
prospects, loss of amenities and future medical expenses.
9. In similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
aforesaid judgment (3 supra) involving the accident of the year 2007
to a 12 years girl, who had sustained 100% disability, found that the
notional income taken at Rs.15,000/ per annum is not at all justified
and considered Rs.4,846/- per month as per the minimum wages
payable to a skilled workman. Further in the aforesaid judgments
(1 and 2 supra), involving accidents that took place in the year 2010
and 2013 to children of below 12 years, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had considered their monthly income at Rs.3,700/- and Rs.5,250/-
respectively. Hence, the notional income arrived at Rs.15,000/- per
annum by the Tribunal is on lower side, which the appellant would
have earned on becoming a major. Hence, this Court is inclined to
take the daily wage of the appellant at Rs.100/- per day, which
amounts to Rs.3,000/- per month.
10. Having regard to the age and income of appellant as determined
above, if 40 percent of the income is included as future prospects as
per law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi 4,
the monthly income would be Rs.4,200/- i.e. Rs.50,400/- per annum.
Applying the multiplier of '15' and disability at 50%, the loss of future
earnings due to permanent disability to life would be Rs.3,78,000/-
(Rs.50,400 x 15 x 50/100).
11. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- under the
head of injury, shock, pain and suffering and the same is enhanced to
Rs.2,00,000/-. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under
other heads such as medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment,
attendant expenses, etc. and this Court is not inclined to interfere
with the said finding.
12. In the award passed way back in the year 2015, the Tribunal
has not awarded amount towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage
prospects and future medical treatment and the appellant whose
claim is pending since the year 2019 before this Court is entitled to
payment of the same.
13. On the basis of the citations (supra 1 to 3) referred by the
learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant is awarded an amount
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
of Rs.3,00,000/- each towards loss of amenities, loss of marriage
prospects and recurring expenses for purchase of prosthetic limb.
14. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes to
Rs.14,98,000/- instead of Rs.1,57,500/- as was awarded by the
Tribunal.
15. As far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted interest
@ 6% per annum for which this Court is inclined to interfere with the
same by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 5, and hereby
increases the interest granted by the Tribunal from 6% per annum to
7.5% per annum.
16. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal
from Rs.1,57,500/- to Rs.14,98,000/-, which shall carry interest at
the rate of 7.5% per annum. The compensation amount shall be
deposited by respondent No.2 within a period of two months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and shall recover the same
from the Insured/respondent No.1. On such deposit, as the appellant
had attained majority, she is entitled to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security. However, the appellant shall pay the deficit
5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
court fee on the enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to
costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 14.02.2025
gvl
