Telangana High Court
G.Nagaraju vs Boini Shiva Kumar on 3 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1370 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri C.Buchi Reddy, learned counsel for respondent-
Insurance Company. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved
by the order, dated 16.02.2023, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1670 of 2018 by
the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVI
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short,
'Tribunal').
3. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166
of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.65,50,000/-
from the respondents jointly and severally as he met with an accident
on 25.06.2018 and sustained grievous injuries. The appellant is the
owner cum driver of lorry bearing No.AP 37V 5241 and had income of
Rs.30,000/- per month. On 25.06.2018 at 9:00 P.M., when the
appellant was going on his bike bearing No.AP 07 AD 3148 from
Nagole to RK Nagar and when the motorcycle reached near
Bandlaguda bus stop, one lorry bearing No.TS 08 UB 2954 came
wrong side in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the bike, as a result, the appellant sustained
fracture of left shoulder, digloved with bronchial plexus injury,
compartment syndrome of left upper limb, injury to chest, left
bronchial artery injury, head injury and blunt injuries all over the
body. Due to said accident and injuries sustained, the appellant
sought compensation by examining P.Ws.1 to 6 and got marked
Exs.A1 to A12. Respondent No.2 did not examine any witness but got
marked insurance policy as Ex.B1. Upon examining the oral and
documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded compensation of
Rs.20,85,211/- as against the claim of Rs.65,50,000/-. Aggrieved by
the same, the present appeal is preferred.
4. In grounds of appeal, it is contended that the monthly income of
the appellant was Rs.30,000/- as lorry driver but the Tribunal has
erroneously taken as Rs.15,000/- per month. Further, the appellant
sustained three grievous injuries and disability certificate is issued.
The Tribunal has taken the percentage of disability as 40%. The
appellant sought Rs.1,80,000/- towards loss of income during the
treatment period and Rs.2,50,000/- towards loss of amenities, social
status, shock and mental agony. On the basis of the aforementioned
grounds, the appellant sought enhancement of compensation.
5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
argued that the left hand of the appellant is paralysed and the said
hand cannot be used to do any work and therefore, the functional
disability has to be taken at 100% being a lorry driver. Further,
learned counsel for the appellant insisted that as a lorry driver, the
income of the appellant has to be taken as Rs.30,000/- per month but
meager amount of Rs.15,000/- per month is taken by the tribunal.
6. In response, learned counsel for respondent No.2 argued that
100% disability can be that of left hand but not the entire body and
therefore, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Vasanthi and another v.
Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and another 1 wherein the
income of a 23 year old qualified engineer who was pursuing MBA
degree was taken at Rs.30,000/- per month. This case is clearly not
applicable to the facts of the present case as there is no information
available about education of the appellant except for the fact that he is
claiming to be a lorry driver. The income of a lorry driver would be far
different from the income of a qualified engineer pursuing MBA.
Further, learned counsel for the appellant referred to a common
(2022)15 SCC 316
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in MACMA Nos.1651 and
1482 of 2016 dated 21.02.2024, wherein the income of an owner cum
lorry driver is taken at Rs.18,000/- per month by taking the notional
income as Rs.600/- per day. The entire case record shows that the
appellant is a driver. As per common judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court (referred supra), Rs.18,000/- income is taken when the
injured was owner cum driver. In the instant case, there is no proof
about the appellant being owner cum driver of vehicle and therefore,
the Tribunal taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- per month as
a driver but not owner seems appropriate and therefore, need not be
interfered with. However, the percentage of disability on account of
the inability of the appellant to be a driver forever in future requires
that the functional disability be taken at 100%. More particularly, the
oral evidence of P.W.4-Dr.Vivek Reddy shows that the appellant
cannot drive any vehicle due to disability on account of the grievous
injuries sustained in the accident. To the said extent the order passed
by the tribunal needs to be modified. There are four grievous injuries
and therefore, grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering is
just and reasonable and need not be interfered with. Further, the
grant of medical bills and pharmacy bills of Rs.3,80,000/- is
appropriate. To sum up, this Court is inclined to enhance the
compensation by taking the percentage of disability as 100%.
8. To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings
due to disability, as per age and income of the claimant, if 25% of the
income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others 2,
the annual income would be Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- +
45,000/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 3, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with
relevant multiplier of '14', the loss of future earnings of the appellant
due to disability at 100% is Rs.31,50,000/- (Rs.2,25,000/- x 14 x
100/100).
9. In addition, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,00,000/- towards
pain and suffering, Rs.3,00,000/- towards future medical expenses,
Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.10,000/- towards
transportation, Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment and
Rs.3,80,000/- towards medical and pharmacy bills. There is no proof
about payment made on attendant and therefore, no compensation is
awarded towards attendant charges. In total, the appellant is entitled
to Rs.40,65,000/-.
10. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
Rs.20,85,211/- to Rs.40,65,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
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. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 03.07.2025
ssp
