Telangana High Court
M.Shankar Dileep Sarma vs Mecherla Lakshmaiah on 7 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.250 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Smt. T. Padmaja, learned counsel representing Sri Harinath
Reddy Soma, 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-XIII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2810 of 2013,
dated 31.07.2018.
3. The claim petition arose on account of the injuries sustained
by the appellant in road traffic accident, which took place on
30.03.2013 at 4.30pm, when the appellant and his sister were
returning from Apollo Hospital on motorcycle bearing No.AP 29AV
5287, at NRI College, one auto rickshaw bearing No.AP 23Y 8331
came in high speed and dashed the motorcycle. The appellant
claimed compensation of Rs.28,00,000/-, whereas, the Tribunal
awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 6% per
annum.
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant claimed that during he
had income of Rs.45,000/- per month as Software Engineer but the
Tribunal considered only Rs.10,000/- per month. As per the
Disability certificate/Ex.A6, the physical disability is 30% whereas
loss of earning capacity is 50%. The Tribunal ought to have
awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of earnings but Rs.50,000/-
was awarded. Further, the charges of attendant are not awarded.
Further, no compensation was awarded towards loss of future
prospects, loss of amenities and permanent disability. Lastly, the
Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum instead of 9% per
annum.
5. Seeking enhanced compensation, the learned counsel for the
appellant relied upon the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of
Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Syed Saleem vs. Abdul Shukur
and another 1, wherein, it is held that there is no requirement to
prove disability by examining very same doctor who treated victim
and to obtain such certificate from very same doctor. The same
legal principle is laid down in common judgment of this Court in
MACMA Nos.2674 of 2013 and 1009 of 2019 dated 12.04.2023.
2007 (1) ALD 382
6. As per Ex.A3 Wound certificate issued by Apollo Hospital, the
appellant sustained only one grievous injury i.e. Grade-I compound
comminuted fracture both bones proximal 3rd left leg abrasion
injury over back left side. In medical parlance, this is treated as a
single injury though two bones are fractured in the lower part of
the leg. Therefore, grant of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and
suffering is not meager, but, reasonable.
7. Coming to the aspect of loss of earnings, the appellant
claimed to be Software Engineer with income of Rs.45,000/- per
month. However, the appellant did not lead evidence to prove his
income. Neither his salary certificate nor pay slip or any other
evidence is lead to prove the income. The income of a Software
Engineer in the year 2013 in the absence of evidence was taken as
Rs.10,000/- per month by the Tribunal. The income of an unskilled
labourer in the year 2013 was taken at Rs.4,500/- per month while
a skilled labourer was taken at about 6,000/- per month. As per
police record i.e. FIR/Ex.A1 and charge sheet/Ex.A2, the appellant
herein is shown to be a regular Software employee. Therefore, the
income can be taken at Rs.15,000/- per month and Rs.75,000/- is
awarded towards loss of earnings for the five months time period
that might have taken for healing and resuming work.
8. The Tribunal has not taken into account the disability
certificate under Ex.A6 on the premise that the appellant
approached PW2 doctor in August, 2015 i.e. after two years of the
accident only for the purpose of claiming compensation. In this
regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that the extent of disability cannot be verified immediately after the
accident, but takes time to have proper assessment. For example,
the disability following a head injury cannot be ascertained
immediately. Likewise, the impact of a fracture injury cannot be
ascertained immediately but can be ascertained only after a lapse
of time period when the fracture/wound is completely healed. As
per the judgment in Syed Saleem's case (supra), a doctor who has
not treated a victim of motor vehicle accident also is authorized to
give disability certificate. Therefore, the disability certificate issued
by PW2 under Ex.A6 is taken into consideration. Though there is
physical disability, the same would not transform into loss of
earning capacity as the appellant is a Software Engineer who works
by sitting at desk. Thus, though the physical disability is 30%, loss
of source of income due to functional disability is taken at 15%.
9. 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,
the annual income would be Rs.2,52,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 12 +
72,000/-). 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 15% is Rs.6,42,600/- (Rs.2,52,000/- x 17 x
15/100). Further, the appellant is also entitled for Rs.10,000/- for
grievous injuries, Rs.15,944/- towards medical bills and Rs.24,056/-
towards transportation and extra nourishment as awarded by the
Tribunal. In all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.8,67,600/-.
10. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization. This Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 4,
inclined to increase the rate of interest awarded by the learned
Tribunal to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation amount from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
11. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation
awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to
Rs.8,67,600/-, which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 and 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: 07.03.2025
gvl
