Telangana High Court

Nikhil Mallick , Mallick Nikhil vs Ghulam Khaza Saleemuddin on 12 June, 2025

   THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                      M.A.C.M.A.NO.271 OF 2020

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A. is preferred by the appellant-claimant under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ('the Act,

1988') being unsatisfied with compensation awarded under Award

and decree, dated 15.05.2019, M.V.O.P.No.159 of 2015 passed by

the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Adilabad (for short, 'the

Tribunal').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2014 at

about 9:30 AM., while the claimant was proceeding on his

motorcycle from Kaghaznagar to Mancherial and when he reached

AC Corner road near ACC Chowrastha, Mancherial, all of a sudden

one TATA Vista Car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 driven by

respondent No.1 came from wrong side in a rash and negligent

manner with a high speed and dashed his motorcycle, resulting

which the claimant fell down on the ground and sustained crush

injury to his left lower limb, fracture to right tibia, injury on frontal

region, injury on root, nose and injuries to all over the body.

Immediately after the accident, the claimant was shifted to

NNRJ macma_271_2020

Government Hospital, Mancherial and from there he was shifted to

Orchid Hospital, Karimnagar, where he admitted as inpatient and

doctors conducted several tests and debridement and external

fixation was done and thereafter he was discharged on 10.01.2015

with an advice to take bed rest and to follow up treatment. Due to

non-healing of injury of his right tibia, the claimant again admitted

in the said hospital and doctors conducted surgical operation and

interlocking nail tibia of right leg and skin grappling was done and

discharged on 13.02.2015 with an advice to take bed rest and to

follow up treatment. He incurred an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

towards medical expenses.

4. Based on the complaint, the police Mancherial

registered a case in Crime No.459 of 2014 and filed charge sheet

against respondent No.1 for the offence under Section 338 of I.P.C.

At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 45 years, he

was hale and healthy and used to earn a sum of Rs.15,000/- per

month as a Fisherman. Due to the said accident, the claimant was

not able to attend his regular and routine works and he has

incurred financial problems and mental agony. Hence, the

claimant filed claim petition claiming compensation of

Rs.10,00,000/- under all heads.

5. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 did not contest the matter

and remained ex parte.

NNRJ macma_271_2020

6. Respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter-

affidavit denying the averments made in the claim petition

including the age, avocation and income of the claimant and also

the manner of the accident. It is stated that the driver of TATA

Vista Car bearing No.AP-01-AB-9909 is not having valid and

effective driving licence, which is violation of policy conditions,

hence, respondent No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. It is

further stated in the counter that there is non-joinder of necessary

parties i.e., the insurer and owner of motorcycle on which the

claimant was proceeding as the accident took place due to head

and collision between the motorcycle and the Car, hence, they are

proper and necessary parties to the petition. It is further stated

that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive

exorbitant as such the petition is liable to be dismissed.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed

the following issues

"1. Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the claimant Nikhil Mallick @ Mallick Nikhil due to rash and negligent manner and high speed driving of Car bearing AP- 01-AB-9909 by its driver?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, and if so, to what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3. To what relief?"

NNRJ macma_271_2020

8. During the course of enquiry, the claimant himself

examined as P.W.1 and also got examined P.W.2, the Doctor, who

examined through Advocate Commissioner and got marked as

Exs.A.1 to A.25. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were

examined and no documents were marked.

9. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and

documentary evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the

crime vehicle involved in the accident was validly insured with

respondent No.3 and the policy was in force as on the date of

accident. Therefore, respondent No.1, being driver, respondent

No.2, being owner and respondent No.3, being insurance company

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of

Rs.7,34,348/- to the claimant with interest at 7.5% per annum.

There is no dispute that no cross appeal is preferred by the

insurance company.

10. Being aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the

Tribunal and as to the liability fixed upon the respondent-

insurance company, in the absence of there being any appeal

preferred by the insurance company, it can be presumed that the

respondent-insurance company has no grievance regarding the

liability and the quantum.

11. The appellant has preferred the present appellant

contending that though the appellant sustained 50% disability

NNRJ macma_271_2020

only, Tribunal has taken the disability at 25%. But, on perusal of

the record, it clearly shows that there is no single piece of

document to show that the claimant sustained disability of 50%. In

support of his contention, he relied on the evidence of P.W.2, the

Doctor who said to have treated him.

12. No doubt, the Tribunal can look into the evidence of

P.W.2 and ought to have considered the same as he is a competent

person who assessed the disability which is stated by him in his

evidence. Though there is a disability certificate, no percentage is

mentioned in the said certificate. However, the said certificate was

accepted by the Tribunal, in spite of there being no disability

mentioned by the Medical Board taking the disability at 25% for

calculating the compensation towards loss of future earnings.

13. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-

Insuance Company vehemently contended that in the absence of

any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, the

assessment made by the Tribunal taking 25% as the notional

disability and awarding compensation is not proper. But,

considering the fact that P.W.2 being the doctor, who has treated

the claimant, has specifically stated in the evidence that there is

disability of 50%.

14. Learned Tribunal having considered the evidence of

P.W.2, the doctor who treated P.W.1, has taken the disability of the

NNRJ macma_271_2020

claimant at 25%. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there

is nothing more to consider in the absence of any other proof

placed by the claimant and the said finding given by the Tribunal

not been questioned by respondent No.3, as such this Court does

not find any ground to interfere with, in respect of assessing

disability assessing 25% by the Tribunal and accordingly

calculating the compensation under the head of loss of earnings.

15. The contention of the claimant is that at the time of

accident he is hale and healthy and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per

month by doing fisherman work and maintaining his family. But,

no material is placed on record to show that he is getting the said

amount by doing fisherman work. At time of accident, he is aged

about 45 years. But, according to the Tribunal the claimant was

aged about 46 years. Admittedly, except oral evidence, there is no

documentary evidence filed by the claimant in support of his

contention that he is earning ount of Rs.15,000/- month, the

Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the deceased at

Rs.4,500/- per month in view the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal

Sundaram Aliance Insurance Co.Ltd 1, and calculated annual

income of the claimant (4500 x 12) = Rs.54,000/-. At this

juncture, the Tribunal also relied on the the landmark judgment of

2011 (6)ALD 75 (SC)

NNRJ macma_271_2020

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance

Company v. Pranay Sethi and others 2 wherein it was held that at

an additional of 25% should be regarded as necessary method of

computation where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50

years. In the present case, as the claimant was 46 years and he

admittedly self-employed, therefore, an additional 25% of the

established income has been taken towards future prospects and

arrived the annual income of the claimant at Rs.67,500/-.

Tribunal has rightly assessed the entire compensation under the

head of loss of future earnings on the ground of permanent

disability and so also the Tribunal was rightly considered the

medical bills and expenses which incurred by the appellant.

16. Having regard to the submissions made by learned

counsel on either side and considering the entire material placed

on record including the judgment cited, in the Award passed by the

Tribunal at paragraph Nos.15 and 16, this Court does not find any

ground either to enhance or reduce the compensation or any other

grounds to interfere with the findings given by the Tribunal so also

the compensation which is awarded, by this Court the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal appears to be just and fair

which needs no interference. Hence, I do not see any grounds to

interfere with the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. For

AIR 2017 SC 5157

NNRJ macma_271_2020

the said reasons, the appeal of the appellant falls to the ground

and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.