Telangana High Court

Yagandla Mallesh vs M/S. Yashwanth Enterprises on 11 July, 2025

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.310 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A has been preferred by the appellant-

claimant aggrieved by the Award and decree, dated

25.09.2019, in M.V.O.P.No.634 of 2013 passed by the

Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'the

Tribunal').

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance

Company. Perused the material on record.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties

hereinafter referred to, as they are arrayed before the

Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 09.03.2012

in the morning hours, the claimant along with one Mushke

Parvathalu, who is father of his co-brother, was proceeding to

Dharmaram from Malyalapally Village on his TVS Victory

Motorcycle and when they reached near the well of Gudipalli

Village on the road leading from Godavarikhani to NNR,J 2 Macma_310_2020

Dharmaram, the APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-15-Y-4778

driven by its driver came from back side in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed and dashed the motorcycle,

as a result of which, the claimant and the pillion rider fell

down from the vehicle and sustained grievous injuries.

5. A crime was registered against the driver of vehicle

for the offence punishable under Section 338 of I.P.C.

Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to

Sarojini Hospital, Karimnagar, where he was treated as

inpatient from 09.03.2012 to 15.03.2012 and he underwent

operation and plating was done to the fractured bones and he

was discharged on 15.03.2012 with an advice to take

treatment periodically. Due to non-union of left humerus

fracture and implants failure, the petitioner was admitted in

NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, and he underwent operation for

implants removal and he was discharged on 10.12.2014 with

an advice to take treatment periodically. Due to the said

accident, the claimant sustained 88% disability, due to which

he is unable to attend his regular labour work and lost his

earnings. Due to the accident, the claimant suffered

permanent disability to his left hand and he incurred an NNR,J 3 Macma_310_2020

amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and still he is

incurring expenses and also suffering from mental shock.

Respondent No.1, being the owner, respondent No.2 being

insurer and respondent No.3 being hirer of the bus are jointly

and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

6. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte before the

Tribunal. Respondent No.2 filed counter-affidavit denying the

allegations made in the claim petition contending that

respondent No.3 is liable to pay compensation to the claimant

as respondent No.3 hired the APSRTC bus. The

compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive. It is

further stated that the claimant might not know driving of the

motorcycle and in confusion he came across the road and the

alleged accident might have taken place. Respondent No.3

does not admit that the claimant and driver of bus were

having licences.

7. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues

have been framed by the Tribunal for consideration:

NNR,J 4 Macma_310_2020

(i) "Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e., APSRTC Bus bearing No.AP-15-Y-4778 driven by its driver?

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

     (iii)     To what relief?"
     8.        After   framing     of       issues,   the   claimant    filed

amendment petition seeking amendment for enhancement of

claim amount from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.13,00,000/- for the

injuries and the disability sustained by him in the accident.

Respondent No.2 filed additional counter stating that after

eighteen months from the date of alleged accident, the

claimant himself is responsible for non-union of injury as he

has not taken proper care due to which, he was readmitted in

NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The alleged injuries sustained by

the claimant are not serious in nature, but due to the

negligence of the claimant himself, it was not cured.

9. During the course of enquiry, the claimant himself

examined as P.W.1 besides examining P.W.2 to 4 on his

behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Ex.C.1 through

P.W.4. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined

and Ex.B.1 was marked.

NNR,J 5 Macma_310_2020

10. The Tribunal, having perused the entire oral and

documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that

as per Ex.B.1-Agreement, dated 22.08.2008, executed

between respondent No.1 and respondent No.3, the owner of

the bus i.e., respondent No.1 is liable to pay compensation to

the claimant under the Act, 1988 and accordingly, dismissed

the claim petition against respondent No.3. The Tribunal also

held that as the accident has occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus driven by its driver

and as there are no violation of terms and conditions of the

policy, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability

to pay compensation to the claimant and held that

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation to the claimant at Rs.92,480/- with

proportionate costs and interest @7.5% per annum within a

period of one month from date of said order and on such

deposit, the claimant was permitted to withdraw the entire

compensation amount. Being dissatisfied with the

compensation, the claimant filed the present appeal.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant

contended that in the said accident, the appellant received NNR,J 6 Macma_310_2020

grievous injury to his left hand, which resulted in commuted

fracture of humerus, head injury and simple injuries all over

the body. He also submitted that the appellant examined

P.W.2, the doctor who treated him and issued Ex.A.3-wound

certificate. He further submitted that due to the accident, the

appellant sustained permanent disability to his left hand and

he is not able to lift the weights and not in a position to do

centering work. Prior to the accident, the appellant used to

do centering work at Ramagundem and used to earn an

amount of Rs.9,000/- and odd per month. The appellant also

filed Ex.A.8-disability certificate showing the disability at

88%. He also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any

amount towards loss of expectation of life, loss of amenities

and loss of enjoyment of life. He further submits that the

Tribunal awarded meagre amount under the head of pain and

suffering, extra nourishment and transportation charges and

ultimately he prays to enhance the compensation amount.

12. On the other hand, learned Standing for

respondent No.2-Insurarnce company contended that the

Tribunal, after considering the entire evidence on record,

rightly granted compensation and there are no grounds to NNR,J 7 Macma_310_2020

interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the

appeal.

13. Having heard learned counsel on either side, the

point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether

the appellant is entitled for enhancement of

compensation?

14. POINT:

There is no dispute with regard to occurrence of

accident. It is also an admitted fact that the driver of

APSRTC bearing Bus bearing No.AP-15-Y-4778 found guilty

of the offence and he was convicted by the Court concerned

directing him to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer

simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence

under Section 338 of I.P.C. It is also not in dispute that as

per the gravity of injuries sustained by the appellant in the

accident, he was treated as inpatient from 09.03.2012 to

15.03.2012 and he also underwent operation and plating was

also done to the fractured bones and he was discharged on

15.03.2012 with a follow up treatment periodically. P.W.2,

the Doctor who issued Ex.A.3 wound certificate also deposed NNR,J 8 Macma_310_2020

that due to non-union of left humerus fracture and implants

failure, the appellant also admitted in NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad, where he underwent operation for implants

removal and he was discharged on 10.12.2014 and he was

advised to take bed rest and take follow up treatment for nine

weeks.

15. As per Ex.A8-Disability certificate issued by the

District Medical Board, the appellant has sustained 88%

disability, due to which he is unable to attend to his centering

work and lost his earnings. Appellant claims that he

incurred an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards medical

expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment.

However, the Tribunal did not award any amount because the

appellant has taken treatment under Arogyasree Scheme as

the medical expenses would be borne by Government and so

also as appellant has not filed medical bills, the Tribunal

granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- only towards medical

expenses, Rs.3,000/- only towards transportation charges,

and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment.

NNR,J 9 Macma_310_2020

16. There is no dispute with regard to the age and

nature of job. The appellant was working as Centring Labour.

The Tribunal has notionally taken the income of the appellant

at Rs.100/- per day. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar 1,

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that when there is no proof of

income and earnings, the income can be reasonably estimated

and assessed considering the ground realities by the Courts.

Hence the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal in

so far as assessing the notional income of the appellant @

Rs.3,000/- per month appears to be meager. Hence, this

Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal ought to have taken

at least Rs.200/- per day as daily wages for the appellant.

Accordingly, this Court enhanced the notional income of the

appellant from Rs.100/- per day to Rs.200/- day and monthly

notional income can be fix at Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal has

granted Rs.7,000/- for (63 days) towards loss of income

during the treatment period of 9 weeks and the same is

accordingly enhanced to 12,600/- (Rs.200 * 63 days)

2001(8) SCC 197 NNR,J 10 Macma_310_2020

17. The main contention of the appellant in this

appeal is with regard to disability sustained by the appellant.

According to P.W.2, Doctor, who treated the appellant

contended that the condition of appellant was good at the

time of discharge and there will not be any further

complication after the fracture was united, however PW.4

Doctor who treated the appellant later on, clearly deposed

that the petitioner took treatment for non-union of left

humerus and implants failure and implant was removed on

29.11.2014, plating + fibular grafting and iliac crest bone

grafting of left humerus was done by operation and X-rays

showed fracture union. PW4 also deposed that the appellant

has one inch shortening of left arm due to fracture. Ex.C1 is

Photostat copy of discharge card which also shows that the

appellant has one inch shortening of left arm.

18. The appellant filed Ex.A.8 disability certificate, in

which the percentage of disability was mentioned as 88%. In

the cross-examination, PW.3 deposed that he is not an

Orthopaedic Surgeon and he has not seen the patient and he

is not the person to assess the disability. He further stated NNR,J 11 Macma_310_2020

that he put his signature on the certificate in the capacity of

Chairman. Therefore, the Tribunal disbelieved the percentage

of disability at 88% as mentioned in Ex.A.8 and the Tribunal

had taken disability of the appellant at 5%.

19. As seen from the Ex.A8 Disability Certificate, it

appears that petitioner has suffered permanent disability with

regard to Left Upper Limb, impaired each, weakness of grip,

and the evidence of PW.4 who is also a recognized Doctor

clearly stated that appellant took treatment for non-union of

left humerus and implants failure and implant was removed

on 29.11.2014, plating + fibular grafting and iliac crest bone

grafting of left humerus was done by operation and X-rays

showed fracture union and the petitioner was treated at

N.I.M.S. Hyderabad and Ex.C1-discharge card, which clearly

evident that the appellant has suffered permanent disability,

but the ExA8 states that the appellant suffered 88%

disability,

20. In view of the above observation, this Court feels

that the appellant has suffered permanent disability due to

injury received in the accident, but 88% of permanent NNR,J 12 Macma_310_2020

disability appears to be on higher side as PW.3 - deposed

that appellant can perform work by kneeling and crouching

and the appellant can perform work by bending and by sitting

and standing and also by walking, hence by considering all

the material on records, it can be safely concluded that

appellant may find difficult to perform day to day activities

including weakness of grip, which will impact the work of the

appellant, as the appellant work as Centering Labour who

needs to stand, walk, sit on roof, iron/wood logs to perform

day to day activities and also shortening of left arm due to

fracture would also come under functional disability, which

may cause inconvenience to the appellant in performing his

job. in view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the

Tribunal has erred in taking the disability of the appellant @

5% and the same ought to have taken @ 40% rather than 5%.

21. Accordingly, the petitioner income can be

notionally taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. Apart from that,

as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National NNR,J 13 Macma_310_2020

Insurance Company Limited v. Prany Sethi and others 2

and the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Jagdish v. Mohan and others 3 In Jagdish v. Mohan 4, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi's case, this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years."

Apart from the above judgment the Constitution Bench in

Pranay Sethi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held and

considering the age of the petitioner between 26 and 30 years,

additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future

prospects to the monthly income of the petitioner. After

applying the same, then, the monthly income of the appellant

would come to Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000/- + Rs.2,400/-). The

annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,00,800/-

(Rs.8,400/- X 12). As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in

the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

2017 ACJ 2700

(2018) 4 Supreme Court Cases 571

(2018) 4 supreme Court Cases 571 NNR,J 14 Macma_310_2020

Transport Corporation 5, and considering the age of the

appellant, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the

appellant's age is '17'. Thus, the total loss of future earnings

for computation of permanent disability would come to

Rs.6,85,440/- (1,00,800/- x 17 * 40%).

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, and

considering the material on record this Court is of the opinion

that the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of

compensation as modified and recalculated as above and as

given in the table below for easy reference.


                 Head           Amount arrived at by     Amount arrived at by
                                   the Tribunal              this Court

           Loss of income             Rs.92840/-             Rs.6,85,440


       Loss of earning for
     treatment period i.e., 9
             weeks                    Rs.7,000/-             Rs.12,600/-

       Pain and Suffering             Rs.30,000/-            Rs.30,000/-

        Medical Expenses              Rs.5,000/-             Rs.5,000/-

       Extra Nourishment              Rs.5,000/-             Rs.5,000/-

         Transportation               Rs.3,000/-             Rs.3,000/-

             Total :                  Rs.92,840/-            Rs.7,41,040





    2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
                                                              NNR,J
                              15                    Macma_310_2020

23. Thus, the appellant/claimant in all is entitled to

the enhanced compensation of Rs.7,41,040/- as against the

awarded amount of Rs.92,840/- by the learned Tribunal.

24. Considering the circumstances of the case, the

learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the rate of interest at

7.5 % per annum and the same needs no interference by this

Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the

petitioners/claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5 % on the

enhanced amount. Hence, the appellant is entitled for

compensation of Rs.7,41,040/-.

25. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in-part

enhancing the compensation from Rs.92,840/- to