K.Hanumanthu vs Bantu Srinivas And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 93 Tel

Telangana High Court

K.Hanumanthu vs Bantu Srinivas And 2 Others on 2 May, 2025

          THE HON'BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO

                         MACMA.No.86 of 2022


JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal arises out of an award passed by XXV Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court Hyderabad in MVOP.No. 734 of 2017

dated 06.09.2021.

2.1 The facts in the OP are that the appellant/claimant was

going slowly on left side of the road on his motorcycle bearing No.

AP-23-AN-9166 from Gowlidoddi to ICICI Bank to attend his duty

on 23.12.2016 at about 7.30 a.m., when he reached near Wipro

circle signal at that time a car bearing No. AP-09-TV-9125 came in

a rash and negligent manner and hit the motorcycle of the

appellant/claimant in which he sustained fracture of D12 vertebra,

fracture of left transverse process of D12, fracture of left 12th rib,

fracture anterior L4 and L5, head injury and blunt injuries all over

the body and he was shifted to Rajitha Hospital, Gachibowli and

later on took treatment at Tilak Nagar Hospital and he is still

undergoing treatment.

2.2 The appellant/claimant was aged about 42 years at the time

of accident and was healthy, earning Rs.10,000/- per month by

doing housekeeping job and used to look after his family. By the

BRMR, J

date of petition he was not doing any job due to the injuries

sustained by him in the accident and prayed to award

Rs.9,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum with

costs.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte before the

Tribunal. Respondent No.3 filed its counter denying the accident

and also raised several contentions and also pleaded that the

petition is bad for non-joinder of owner and driver of the motor

cycle and that the compensation claimed by the

appellant/claimant is excessive, prayed for dismissal.

4. Appellant is examined as PW1 and also examined PW2, got

marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.3 RW1 is

examined, Exs.B1 to B3 are marked.

5.1. The Tribunal based on the evidence led by the parties has

awarded the following compensation.

                    Head of payment                            Amount

        fracture of D12 vertebra                         Rs.1,00,000/-

fracture of left transverse process of Rs.1,00,000/-

        D12

        fracture of left 12th rib                        Rs.1,00,000/-

        fracture of left ankle                           Rs.1,00,000/-

                                                                   BRMR, J





      Extra nourishment                         Rs.50,000/-

      Transportation charges                    Rs.50,000/-

      Medical expenses                          Rs.50,000/-

      Total Compensation payable                Rs.5,50,000/-

5.2 Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation with proportionate costs and interest at the rate

of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit,

out of which appellant/claimant was permitted to withdraw

Rs.4,50,000/- along with interest on the entire amount and costs

and Rs.1,00,000/- shall be kept in a Nationalized Bank for a period

of two years in the interest generating fixed deposit.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the

Tribunal failed to consider the disability and loss of earning

capacity of the appellant and the evidence of PW2 is not taken into

consideration at proper prospective and also failed to award loss of

earning, loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony.

The Tribunal failed to award any amount towards pain and

suffering though the appellant has claimed Rs.40,000/-, which is

just and reasonable and also failed to award damages towards

clothing and articles and failed to apply the multiplier method

towards continuing or permanent disability, the Tribunal has failed

to consider the loss of earnings. In support of his contention, has

BRMR, J

relied on the decisions in cases of (i) Syed Saleem vs. Abdul

Shukur and another 1, (ii) Y. Devendar Goud Vs. S.Papaiah and

another 2 (iii) J. Santosh Reddy @ Santosh Vs. P.Narsimha and

another 3.

7. The appellant has enhanced the claim from Rs.9,00,000/- to

14,15,000/- which was allowed by this Court vide I.A.No.2 of 2022,

dated 15.07.2022.

8. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were served with the notice in the

appeal but no one appeared.

9. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the

appellant/claimant went to PW2 after three months of the accident

and he is not a treated doctor. Ex.A6 (disability certificate) issued

by PW2 cannot be considered.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the

quantum awarded to the appellant.

11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

12. The only point arises for consideration is whether the award

passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable.

(2007) 1 ALD 382

MACMA.Nos.1709 and 4406 of 2012, dated 12.04.2023 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

MACMA.No.1475 of 2011, dated 08.09.2022 of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad

BRMR, J

13. The evidence of PW1 is that at the time of the accident he

was aged about 42 years and was hale and healthy, was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month by doing housekeeping job and was looking

after his family, he was treated for a period of five to six months.

The Tribunal has totally ignored to calculate the earnings of the

appellant.

14. PW2 is the orthopedic surgeon and he is also a member of

the Medical Board of Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He

deposed that patient by name K.Hanumanthu came to his clinic on

27.03.2017 with a complaint of low back ache, ankle pain and pain

in the left flank. The patient met with a road traffic accident in the

month of December 2016 and he treated the patient with

medication and physiotherapy, who came several times for future

treatment up to 04.09.2018. The disability of the

appellant/claimant is around 25%, which is permanent partial and

functional. The loss of earning capacity is 60% and it is difficult for

the appellant/claimant to work as house keeper and he advised

the claimant to carry hand stick for support while walking, the

claimant cannot carry weights, walk long distance and stand for

prolonged periods and it is difficult for him to bend and the injuries

sustained by the patient are grievous in nature and issued Ex.A6

disability certificate.

BRMR, J

15. Ex.A4 is the original CT Lumbosacral Spine Scan report

issued by the TESLA Diagnostics of the claimant dated 23.12.2016,

the injuries noted there on are (i) Burst fracture of D12 vertebral

body with anterior wedge collapse and minimal pre-vertebral soft

tissue collection (ii) fracture of left transverse process of D12 and

adjacent left 12th rib (iii) anterior osteophytes at L4 and L5. In all

the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each for

the fracture injuries.

16. In Syed Saleem's case1 this Court has observed at paragraph

No. 14 that the time gap in obtaining the disability certificate

cannot be viewed in isolation as disability cannot be assessed

immediately on the next day of the sustaining the injuries, but

naturally the wounds have to be yield so as to make assessment of

the disability. The time taken in obtaining the disability certificate

in the instant case is not too long to doubt its genuinity.

17. In Y. Devendar Goud's case2 this Court observed at

paragraph No.6 as under:

"Admittedly, the claimant has sustained injuries and he was studying II year Engineering as the date of accident. As per the law laid down by the Division Bench of this court in B.Ramulamma v. V.Venkatesh Bus Union - 2009 (6) ALD 634 (DB), the income of the claimant who was studying II Year Engineering at the time of accident can be taken at Rs.9,600/- per month and if the future prospects at 40% are added, the monthly income would come to Rs.13,440/- (Rs.9,600+3,840). As per Schedule II of the Act, if the

BRMR, J

annual income is multiplied with relevant multiplier to the age of the injured i.e.18, the total future earnings of the claimant in his normal life would be Rs.29,03,040/- (Rs.13,440X12X18). Due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the claimant had sustained 20% disability. Hence, he is entitled Rs.5,80,608/- (Rs.29,03,040X20/100) towards loss of income due to disability."

18. In J. Santosh Reddy's case3 this Court observed at paragraph

Nos.17 and 18 as under:

"17. It is settled proposition that the effect of disability on the income earning capacity is the factor for consideration in assessing compensation for the disability and it is common knowledge that the disability rated by the doctor would refer to the physical disability. Thus, taking the particular of inability to sit for long time and other inconvenience stated by the doctors, the petitioner's physical disability affecting the income earning capacity is believed at 25%.

18. In the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Pappu Deo Yadav vs Naresh Kumar - AIR 2020 SC 4424 held that future prospects enunciated in the dictum of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi - 2017 (16) SCC 860 and others is equally applicable to the cases of injuries in assessment of compensation. Therefore, by the age and pleaded occupation of the petitioner, 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the annual loss of income at 25% would be Rs.75,600/-. If this sum is multiplied with the multiplier applicable to the age of petitioner i.e., 17, the total amount comes to Rs.12,85,200/-. The petitioner is entitled to this amount towards loss of future income owing to the disability."

19. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate issued by PW2, who is also

a member of medical board of Osmania General Hospital

Hyderabad. Appellant went to PW2 for treatment after three

BRMR, J

months of the accident. The evidence of PW2 cannot be brushed

aside in toto with that of Ex.A6. This Court is of view that PW2 is

competent to issue Ex.A6 disability certificate and the decision in

Syed Saleem1 case is squarely applicable.

20. The Tribunal failed to answer the loss of earning and did not

consider Ex.A6 disability certificate but awarded Rs.4,00,000/- for

four grievous injuries. The decisions in Y. Devendar Goud2 case

and J. Santosh Reddy3 case are applicable to the case on hand.

21. The Court can grant compensation exceeding the claim

amount subject to payment of Court fees, the same is considered

by the Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others 4,

reiterated in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) 9

SCC 54; Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 3 SCC 210

and Jitendra Khimshankar Trivedi and others v. Kasam Daud

Kumbhar and others, 2015 (3) ALD 141 (SC) = (2015) 4 SCC 237.

22.1 Accident has taken place on 23.12.2016, as per the claim

petition, the appellant/claimant used to earn Rs.10,000/- per

month as a housekeeper. This Court is of the view that the

earnings of the appellant per month is taken as Rs.8,000/- which

will meet the ends of justice. The appellant was aged about 42

4 2003(1) ALD 1 (SC) = (2003) 2 SCC 274

BRMR, J

years at the time of the accident and future prospects to be added

at 25%. The determination of compensation is as under:

      Sl.No.         Name of the Head           Compensation

      1.        Monthly income             Rs.8,000/-

      2.        Add 25% future prospects Rs.10,000/-

(as per National Insurance 8,000 + ((8,000 x 25%) = Co.Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi 5) 2,000)

3. Annual income Rs.1,20,000/-

(10,000 x 12)

4. Multiplier '14' Rs.16,80,000/-

                As per Smt.Sarla Varma (1,20,000 x 14)
                Vs.     Delhi    Transport
                Corporation 6
      5.        Disability                 Rs.4,20,000/-
                                           (16,80,000 x 25%)
      6.        Pain and suffering         Rs.40,000/-

      7.        Loss of earning capacity   Rs.60,000/-
                                           (Rs.10,000 x 6 months)
      8.        Transportation    charges, Rs.1,50,000/-
                extra        nourishment,
                damages     to   clothing,
                nursing,    shock     and
                mental agony
      9.        Total compensation         Rs.6,70,000/-

22.2 Interest to be awarded at the rate of 9% per annum as per

the decision of the Supreme Court in Anjali and Others vs.

Lokendra Rathod and others 7.

23. MACMA.No.86 of 2022 is allowed in part as hereunder:

5 (2017) ACJ 2700 6 (2009) ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1683

BRMR, J

1) The appellant/claimant is awarded compensation of

Rs.6,70,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only)

with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of

petition (02.03.2017) till realization.

2) Respondents No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay

the compensation amount within 60 days from the date of

receipt of a copy of the judgment, less the amount already

deposited if any.

3) The appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire

amount without furnishing security.

There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous

applications, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J 02.05.2025 Dua