Telangana High Court
Syed Wazeed Or Abdul Wajeed vs Penchala Sagar on 20 June, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.264 of 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri P.V.B.Nandana Sarma, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Annampelli Gangadhar, learned counsel for respondent
No.1 and Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company and perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/claimant
aggrieved by the award passed by the learned Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge at Nizamabad
(for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.332 of 2017, dated
03.01.2023.
3. The claim petition arose on account of the injuries sustained
by the appellant in a road traffic accident, which took place on
02.12.2016 while he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP
28AN 3520 from Thad-Biloli to Binola side. When the appellant's
motorcycle reached the outskirts of Abbapur Village, the driver of
tractor bearing No.AP 15 AT 0680 which was driven in high speed
in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle, thereby, the
accident occurred causing multiple injuries to the appellant. As
such, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of
Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The Tribunal after examining the oral and documentary
evidence awarded compensation of Rs.5,16,240/- with interest
7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said compensation awarded, the
present appeal is preferred.
5. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that he was
treated as an inpatient from 01.12.2016 to 18.12.2016, again
admitted on 26.12.2016 and discharged on 29.12.2016. Thereafter,
the appellant was admitted on 31.01.2017 to 01.02.2017. Lastly,
the appellant was admitted on 14.02.2017 and discharged on
17.02.2017. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal failed
to consider the evidence of PW2 and PW3 who have treated the
appellant and issued Ex.A4 Injury certificate. The Tribunal did not
believe the version of the appellant earning Rs.30,000/- per month
and further grossly erred in paying loss of pay for only four (4)
months instead of one (1) year. Further, it is contended that no
amount is awarded towards attendant charges for one (1) year and
only Rs.8,000/- is awarded towards transportation. It is further
contended that the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of
Rs.4,000/- towards extra nourishment. The amount towards total
medical bills filed is not awarded and no amount is awarded
towards follow-up treatment. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded
towards pain and suffering is less and therefore, sought
enhancement of compensation.
6. During oral arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant
argued that as a labour, the appellant earned Rs.30,000/- per
month but the same is not taken into consideration due to lack of
documentary evidence. Further, it is contended that the
compensation awarded is less and that future prospects are not
awarded. However, in general, a Sales Personnel who work for 12
hours a day and 6 days a week are paid Rs.12,000/- per month. As
a labour, on the premise that work is available for 26 days in a
month, the notional income taken by the learned Tribunal at
Rs.9,000/- is just and reasonable. Therefore, the same is taken
into consideration for computing the loss of earnings at
Rs.36,000/- for four (4) months. As per the evidence of two doctors
examined as PW2 and PW3, the appellant sustained depressed
frontal bone fracture with Extra Dural hematoma and fracture of
lower end of femur with fracture of upper end of tibia and fibula of
the right leg. On account of four fractures that too to the legs, the
time taken for healing and resuming the normal work cannot be
less than six (6) months. Therefore, an amount of Rs.54,000/-
(Rs.9,000/- X 6) is awarded towards loss of earnings.
7. Considering the nature of four grievous injuries, the learned
Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering,
which is reasonable and just. Further, grant of transportation
charges at Rs.8,000/- is just and therefore, does not need any
interference.
8. The compensation paid towards medical expenses for
Rs.3,68,240/- based on medical bills is appropriate and does not
need any interference.
9. For almost four grievous injuries, awarding Rs.4,000/-
towards extra nourishment is not reasonable and therefore the
same is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-.
10. Further, as per the oral evidence of PW2, the appellant has
suffered deformity of right leg and the same results in continuing
permanent disability. However, there is no disability certificate
issued by him or Medical Board. For considering the disability
factor, in Jummerath Sayanna vs. Md.Arifuddin and others 1, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held as below:
"It is not a hard and fast rule that an injured-claimant in
order to prove his disability must invariably produce a certificate
issued by medical board. That may not be possible in all cases also.
Law does not say that the factum of disability must be established
only by a certificate issued by medical board. On the other hand,
the factum of disability can be established through a doctor who is
medically competent to speak of the concerned disability. So, if a
competent doctor appears before a Court of law and explains the
nature and extent of disability and the associated problems due to
that disability and if his competency is not challenged by the
adverse party and when no counter material is produced to
establish what the doctor deposed is false, then there is nothing
wrong in Court accepting the evidence of such a medical witness".
11. Relying on the above said decision coupled with the evidence
of PW2 on record, as the appellant is suffering with deformity of
right leg which is a partial permanent disability, the functional
disability is taken at 10%.
12. The appellant was aged 28 years as on the date of accident.
To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings due to
disability, as per age and income of deceased, if 40 percent of the
income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2,
MANU/AP/3507/2013
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
the annual income would be Rs.1,51,200/- (Rs.9,000/-x 12 +
43,200/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 3, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with
relevant multiplier of '17', the loss of future earnings of the appellant
due to disability at 10% is Rs.2,57,040/- (Rs.1,51,200/- x 17x
10/100). In all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.8,12,280/-.
13. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.5,16,240/- to
Rs.8,12,280/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent No.2 shall
deposit the amount within a period of (8) weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this judgment. On such deposit, appellant is entitled
to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing the security.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 20.06.2025
gvl
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
