Telangana High Court
U.Baswaraj vs Mohd Jahangir Ahmed on 24 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1441 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
-
Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri R.Sheetal Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved
by the order, dated 14.02.2023 passed in M.V.O.P.No.2483 of 2015 by
the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, 'the
Tribunal'), wherein an amount of Rs.47,932/- was awarded with
interest at 6% per annum in a claim petition filed seeking
compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- payable by the respondents jointly and
severally.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed claim
petition due to the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident
which occurred on 14.05.2014 at about 4:10 P.M. while the appellant
was performing his traffic duty at Prashanth Nager Y junction. At that
time, a Tata Magic seven seater auto bearing No.AP 15UB 1074 which
was driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant
causing fracture of right hand, head injury and other blunt injuries all
over the body. The appellant filed claim petition and in support thereof
got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. Respondent
No.3 got examined R.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6. The
Tribunal after examining the evidence adduced awarded compensation
of Rs.47,932/- with interest at 6% per annum leading to filing of the
present appeal.
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant pleaded that the Tribunal
failed to consider the partial and permanent disability of 25% though
Ex.A6 is marked to prove disability coupled with oral examination of
the doctor as P.W.2. The Tribunal did not consider the income of the
appellant at Rs.9,000/- per month as Home Guard and also failed to
award loss of earnings for Rs.30,000/-, damage of clothing at
Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is also
pleaded that the attendant charges are not awarded and meager
amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering
instead of Rs.40,000/-.
5. The evidence of P.W.1-appellant is that he suffered fracture of
right hand radius, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. The
evidence of P.W.2, an Orthopedic Surgeon, who treated the appellant,
on consultation, deposed that there is pain in the right elbow joint and
there is disability of 25% which is partial and permanent in nature.
The said disability results in inability to lift weight with right hand and
restricted movement of elbow. The injury is grievous in nature. In
cross-examination, he deposed that conservative treatment is
prescribed which takes 6 weeks to 2 months for the injury to heal.
Further, the fracture has united satisfactorily. As per Ex.A6, the
disability is 25% for the injury which is closed to the neck of right
radius. The evidence as per Ex.A6 is that the fracture of mal-united
whereas the evidence of P.W.2 is that there is proper union of the
fracture and the healing is well. Except for restricted movements of
elbow, there is no other disability. Particularly, there is no disability
that would affect the duties of the appellant as a Homeguard. At best,
the appellant is likely to experience discomfort in elbow movements.
Therefore, the percentage of functional disability can be taken at 10%.
According to the doctor P.W.2, the wound requires about 6 weeks to
8 weeks for healing. Therefore, Rs.18,000/- is awarded towards loss
of earnings. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards grievous
fracture of right radius neck, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.5,932/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation charges and the same need not be interfered with.
Further, the extra nourishment amount of Rs.2,000/- is enhanced to
Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,000/- is awarded towards damage to clothing.
There is no ground to conclude that there is loss of amenities or social
stigma or shock and mental agony which warrants awarding
compensation on the said grounds and therefore, the said grounds are
not considered.
6. The income of the appellant is Rs.9,000/- per month, which
comes to Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. To quantify the compensation
towards loss of future prospects due to disability, as per age (37 years)
and income of the appellant, if 40% of the income is included as future
prospects, the annual income would be Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.1,08,000/-
+ 43,200/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation 1, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied
with relevant multiplier of '15', the loss of future earnings of the
appellant due to disability at 10% is Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.1,51,200/- x 15
x 10/100). In total, the appellant is entitled to Rs.3,02,732/- rounded
to Rs.3,02,750/-.
7. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.47,932/- to
Rs.3,02,750/- 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
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
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: 24.07.2025
ssp
