Telangana High Court
M.Venkatesh vs Mr. Ejaz Khan on 19 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3415 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel
for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the entire
record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the award dated 24.04.2009 passed by the learned
XXII Addl. Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City
Criminal Court at Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in
O.P.No.305 of 2006, wherein, the claim petition filed seeking
compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was allowed in part awarding
compensation of Rs.27,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum.
3. The claim petition arose on account of the appellant
sustaining injury in a road traffic accident that took place on
28.08.2005 at 7.15pm. On that day, when the appellant was going
as a pillion rider on a motorcycle from Yeddumailaram towards
Kishtareddipet with his brother, near the outskirts of Bhanur
village, one lorry bearing No.KA 19/1108 coming from Patancheru
side in opposite direction which was driven in rash and negligent
manner dashed the motorcycle of the appellant causing injuries to
him. The appellant sustained fracture of right ankle and other
injuries all over the body. He was treated as inpatient
conservatively by applying plaster of paris. The appellant was
discharged on 09.09.2005 with an advice of follow up treatment.
The Tribunal upon considering the evidence of PW2, who is the
treated doctor awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering.
Further, the appellant was awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/-
towards incidental expenditure, Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income
for 2 months considering the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-,
Rs.2,000/- towards loss of future amenities and Rs.6,900/-
towards medical bills under Ex.A7. Thus, total compensation of
Rs.27,000/- is awarded.
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant alleged that the amount
awarded towards pain and suffering is less and that no amount is
awarded towards extra nourishment. It is also alleged that less
amount is awarded towards loss of income.
5. Admittedly, the appellant has sustained fracture of right
ankle. The Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- only
towards pain and suffering, whereas the statute requires that an
amount of Rs.25,000/- be paid as compensation for a grievous
injury such as fracture. The fracture of ankle being grievous, the
appellant is entitled to payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/-
towards pain and suffering.
6. Coming to the loss of income awarded by the Tribunal, the
appellant is claiming to be a barber with income of Rs.5,000/- per
month. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-.
As per record, he is a toddy tapper. Even in case, the income of a
labourer is taken as Rs.3,000/- per month with Rs.100/- per day
as income, a toddy tapper by profession is expected to have more
income than a regular cooli. Since there is no proof, the notional
income of the appellant is taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. In
general, any fracture injury is likely to take about 3-4 months for
recovery and unity and about 1 month for resuming the normal
work. Therefore, the amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 5) is
awarded towards loss of income during the 5 months time period
that might have been taken for healing and resuming normal work.
7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.6,900/- towards medical bills on
the basis of Ex.A7/Medical bills and an amount of Rs.2,000/-
towards incidental expenditure and this appeal Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said findings. Further, the appellant
was granted an amount of Rs.2,000/- only towards loss of future
amenities and therefore, this Court is inclined to grant an amount
of Rs.5,000/- towards the same.
8. In addition, the appellant is entitled to payment of
Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards
transportation.
9. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant comes
to Rs.73,900/- instead of Rs.27,000/- as was awarded by the
Tribunal.
10. As far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal granted interest
@ 7% per annum for which this Court is inclined to interfere with
the same by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 1, and hereby
increases the interest granted by the Tribunal from 7% per annum
to 7.5% per annum.
11. In the result, this Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.27,000/- to Rs.73,900/-, which shall carry
interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The compensation amount
shall be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 within a period of two
1 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after
deducting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit,
the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same 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: 19.06.2025
gvl
