Telangana High Court
T Vamsi Krishna vs Mohd Moulana And Another on 10 January, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No.2232 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated
21.02.2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal
Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in O.P. No.43 of
2009, the claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of
compensation.
2. Heard Sri V.Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the
appellant and Smt. I.Maamu Vani, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company. In spite of
service of notice, respondent No.1 has not chosen to enter
appearance.
3. Brief facts of case:
On 31.05.2008 afternoon the appellant and his friends
were travelling by a car bearing No. AP 28 AQ 9128 from
Chevella to Hyderabad and at about 5-30 p.m. when they
reached near the outskirts of Kanakamamidi Village, a lorry
bearing No. AP 12 U 9401 being driven by its driver came in a
rash and negligent manner at high speed from the opposite
direction on the wrong side of the road and dashed their car,
as a result of which, the appellant and other inmates of the
car have sustained grievous injuries and fractures.
Immediately the appellant was shifted to Premier Hospital at
Mehidipatnam and after giving first aid, he was shifted to
Udai Clinic Orthopedic Center, where he was admitted as
inpatient and underwent surgery and was discharged on
14.06.2008. On complaint, the Police, Moinabad registered a
case in Crime No.108 of 2008 against the driver of the lorry
for the offence under Section 337 IPC. Prior to the accident,
he was hale and healthy, aged about 26 years and was
running his own business as Airtel retail distributor and
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. Thus, the appellant has filed
O.P.No.43 of 2009 against the respondents claiming
compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-.
4. Considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part
and awarded compensation of Rs.5,45,000/- to be payable by
the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended
that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries namely
fracture of dislocation of right hip and dislocation of 1st MTPJ
left big toe in the accident occurred due to rash and negligent
driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 12 U 9401 and
PW-2 specifically deposed in his evidence that the appellant
has sustained grievous injuries and he assessed the disability
of the appellant at 10%. However, the Tribunal without
considering the evidence of PW-2, awarded only
Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability sustained by the appellant.
If the disability as stated by PW-2 is taken into consideration,
the appellant is entitled for Rs.2,50,000/- for the disability
sustained by him. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for just
and reasonable compensation.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
submitted that though the appellant has not filed the
disability certificate, the Tribunal after taking into
consideration the oral and documentary evidence on record,
has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for the
disability sustained by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant
is not entitled for enhancement of compensation as claimed
by him in this appeal.
7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by
the respective parties and perused the records. It is not in
dispute that the appellant has sustained grievous injuries
namely fracture of dislocation of right hip and dislocation of
1st MTPJ left big toe in the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP 12 U
9401 and he was admitted as inpatient on 31.5.2008,
undergone operation for the said fractures to which femonal
had with screws, GC fixed and also fixed K wire to his left big
toe and he was discharged on 14.06.2008. PW-2 has
specifically deposed that the appellant has sustained grievous
injuries and he assessed the disability of appellant at 10%
partial permanent disability. By virtue of the said fracture
injuries, the appellant is unable to continue his works as
earlier. In such circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have
considered the disability of appellant at 10%. Merely non-
filing the disability certificate rejecting the claim of the
appellant for the disability sustained by him, is not
sustainable under law. Hence, this Court is of the considered
view that the disability of the appellant can be taken at 10%
to assess the compensation. The Tribunal had taken the
income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/- per month considering
his business as Airtel distributor, which is just and
reasonable. Since the deceased was aged about 26 years at
the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of
the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 1 would be "17". Then the loss of
earning capacity would be Rs.2,04,000/- (Rs.10000/- x 12 x
17 multiplier x 10%). Further, the appellant is entitled for
Rs.10,000/- towards litigation charges as per the principles
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V.Mekala v.
M.Malathi and another 2. The amount awarded by the
Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses and loss of
income is not disturbed. Thus, in all, the appellant is
entitled for Rs.6,59,000/-.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.5,45,000/- to Rs.6,49,000/-. The
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
2014 (5) ALD 42 SC
enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of petition till the date of realization against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are directed to deposit the enhanced
compensation amount with accrued interest 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 said amount without furnishing any security.
No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date:10.01.2025
Pgp
