Telangana High Court
D.Nageswar Rao vs Shailaja Surana on 13 March, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.529 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri Suresh Kumar Bolla, 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 Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-IX Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Courts,
Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2978 of 2014,
dated 11.12.2018.
3. The claim petition was filed by the appellant on account of
injuries sustained by him in road traffic accident, which took place
on 14.10.2014 at 5 pm, when the appellant along with his wife and
son were proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-28-BN 5761
from Care Hospital towards their house. When the motorcycle
reached IDL water tank, the rider of Scooty bearing No.TS-10 EA
4295 coming from the wrong side in high speed dashed the
motorcycle resulting in fracture of left tibia condyle, fracture of left
knee and head injury to the appellant. Upon examining the
evidence adduced by the appellant, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.4,35,000/- as compensation.
4. The appellant challenged the award on the ground that his
monthly income was Rs.15,000/- per month but the Tribunal
considered only Rs.10,000/- per month. Further, no compensation
was awarded towards disability, future prospects and attendant
charges.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance company
argued that the Tribunal awarded reasonable amount.
6. A perusal of the record shows that as per Ex.A3/Medical
Legal case patient record, the appellant sustained only one grievous
injury and according to Ex.A7/Disability certificate, there is 25% of
partial permanent disability on account of difficulty in sitting and
squatting. The physical disability is 25% which is partial
permanent disability in nature according to PW2 doctor. The
functional disability has to be determined on the basis of the
nature of avocation of the appellant. According to the appellant, he
is working as an Office Assistant in Mylan Lab. The work of an
Office Assistant requires continuous walking to do his work.
Therefore, the functional disability also has to be taken at 25%.
There is no evidence adduced to prove the income of the appellant.
Therefore, the national income as a Lab Assistant is taken at
Rs.10,000/- per month, which is reasonable. The age of the
appellant was 30 years as on the date of accident.
7. 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 1,
the annual income would be Rs.1,68,000/- (Rs.10,000/- x 12 +
48,000/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with
relevant multiplier of '17', the loss of future earnings of the appellant
due to disability at 25% is Rs.7,14,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- x 17 x
25/100) instead of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal..
8. The appellant was treated under Aarogyasri. Therefore, removal
of implants also can be done under Aarogyasri and hence, the
Tribunal did not consider payment of compensation towards future
surgery.
9. The Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- for loss
of earnings, Rs.7,000/- for transport, Rs.3,000/- for extra
nourishment, Rs.1,00,000/- for damages to clothing and articles,
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
etc., Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.40,000/- for
pain and suffering and this court is not inclined to interfere with
the said findings.
10. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant is entitled
for the following compensation under different heads:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Loss of future earnings due to Rs.7,14,000/-
disability
(2) Loss of earnings Rs.60,000/-
(3) Transport Rs.7,000/-
(4) Extra nourishment and medicine Rs.3,000/-
(5) Damages to clothing and articles, etc. Rs.1,00,000/-
(6) Medical expenses Rs.25,000/-
(7) Pain and suffering Rs.40,000/-
Total compensation awarded Rs.9,49,000/-
11. In so far as interest is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded
interest @ 9% 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 3,
inclined to decrease the rate of interest awarded by the learned
2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
Tribunal to 7.5% per annum on entire compensation amount from the
date of petition till the date of realization.
12. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal
is partly allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by
the Tribunal from Rs.4,35,000/- to Rs.9,49,000/- as hereunder:
(a) The compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realization.
(b) The appellant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced
amount of compensation.
(c) The respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall deposit the amount
within a period of (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of
judgment. On such deposit, appellant is permitted to
withdraw entire amount without furnishing the security.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No
order as to costs.
___________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: .03.2025
gvl
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
March, 2025
gvl
