National Insurance Co Ltd vs G Sanyasi Rao
2025 Latest Caselaw 2884 Tel

Telangana High Court

National Insurance Co Ltd vs G Sanyasi Rao on 7 March, 2025

            THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA


            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.530 of 2019 & 576 of 2019


COMMON JUDGMENT:

-

Heard Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the claimant

and Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company. Perused the record.

2. Since the facts of the case, the issues involved, the parties

and the Order under challenge, in both these appeals are one and

the same, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment.

3. Challenging the Order, dated 06.12.2018, passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1516 of 2014 by the learned XI Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the National Insurance Company

Limited preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.576 of 2019 seeking to set aside

the impugned Order and the claimant preferred M.A.C.M.A.No.530

of 2019 seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. The claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic

accident that took place on 19.03.2014 at about 10.00 P.M. while

he was proceeding by foot and was dashed by motorcycle bearing

No.AP 28 DJ 6798 which was driven by the rider in high speed in a

negligent manner near Terminal bus stop, Kukatpally. The

Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,94,200/- with interest at

9% per annum.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the

Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of earning

capacity, though the claimant was a highly experienced and skilled

welder-cum-fabricator. Though P.W.2-doctor, who treated the

claimant, deposed that the loss of earning capacity of the claimant

was 55%, as the claimant cannot sit, squat, stand or walk normally

and cannot lift weights with right arm and there is a stiffness of left

knee and ankle and shoulder, however, the Tribunal has

erroneously considered the disability of the claimant as 25%. It is

also contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded

Rs.72,000/- towards loss of earnings instead of Rs.30,000/-,

estimation of Rs.35,000/- for the removal of implants, Rs.2,000/-

towards damage to clothing instead of Rs.1,000/-; Rs.1,00,000/-

towards loss of amenities instead of Rs.50,000/-; and Rs.50,000/-

towards pain and suffering instead of Rs.20,000/- and ultimately

prayed to enhance the compensation.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

National Insurance Company Limited would contend that the

Tribunal erred in granting interest at 9% per annum on the

compensation. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is

contrary to terms and conditions of the policy and oral evidence of

R.W.1. There is failure on the part of the Tribunal in not holding

that the rider of the motorcycle did not have valid driving licence

when the charge sheet was filed by the police under Section 181 of

the Motor Vehicles Act. Further, it is contended that the amount

awarded towards future prospects, loss of earnings, loss of

amenities and pain and suffering are exorbitant. Further, it is

contended that except issuing disability certificate, P.W.2 did not

treat the injured-claimant. It is also contended that the claimant

was admitted at ESI Hospital and was treated conservatively, with

no follow-up treatment and therefore, the compensation awarded is

excessive and ultimately prayed to reduce the compensation.

7. In view of the above rival contentions, the point that arises for

determination in both these appeals is whether the compensation

awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is liable to be

reduced/enhanced?

8. A perusal of the record shows that the claimant suffered

dislocation of right shoulder and fracture of both bones of left leg.

Both the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, awarding of

Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering i.e., Rs.25,000/- per each

grievous injury is proper. The fracture of both bones of left leg is

likely to heal and the claimant may not suffer loss of amenities.

Likewise, dislocation of right shoulder can also be rectified. As per

Ex.A6-disability certificate, physical disability is shown to be at

25%. As per FIR marked under Ex.A1, the claimant is a welder,

which requires heavy dependency upon hands to do the welding

work. The possibility of the claimant being able to do welding work

with the same ability before the subject accident, does not seem to

be probable. One thing that is certain is that the injury of

dislocation to the left shoulder would certainly affect the functional

capability of the claimant. Further, as per the evidence of P.W.2,

who treated the claimant, there is a stiffness of left knee and

inability to lift weights with right arm and walk with the support of

hand stick. Therefore, the disability with respect to right arm and

left leg are both factors, which will affect the earning capacity of the

claimant. Therefore, this Court deems it fit and proper to take the

functional disability suffered by the claimant as 40%, instead of

25% assessed by the Tribunal.