Telangana High Court

Ifficotokio General Insurance Co. Ltd vs S. Nagaraju on 8 September, 2025

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.598 of 2020
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award and

decree passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-

cum-XII Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad,

(hereinafter referred to 'learned Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.305 of 2015,

dated 24.02.2020, wherein claimant filed the claim petition seeking

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the

respondents herein in a motor vehicle accident that took place on

16.12.2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter

referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that appellant/claimant filed

M.V.O.P.No.305 of 2015 under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, 1988

seeking compensation for the injuries received in bike accident alleged

to have caused due to rash and negligent manner by the rider of

another bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280. It is contended that on

16.12.2014, the petitioner while going to Medchal town after

completing his work, from Kandlakoya on his bike bearing No.AP-28-

BT-7097, on the way one bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280 came in high

NNR,J

speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed to petitioner's bike,

as a result, the petitioner fell down on the ground and sustained

fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was

taken to Balaji Hospital at Pet Basheerbad, Secunderabad for

treatment. The Police registered a case in Crime No.518 of 2014

against the rider of bike bearing No.AP-28-M-3280

4. The contention of the petitioner before the learned Tribunal was

prior to the accident, the petitioner was hale and healthy and was

working as an operator in INBISCO India Limited Company and was

drawing salary of Rs.10,000/-. Due to the accident the petitioner was

completely bedridden and was unable to do his work and suffered 45%

of disability as per Ex.A7 issued by Medical Board and cannot sit in

normal position, sit with cross legs and squat. The petitioner/claimant

claimed an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- as compensation for the said

accident under various heads.

5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent Nos.1-Owner-cum-

Driver remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2 - IFFCO Tokyo General

Insurance Company Limited, filed counter-affidavit, denying all the

averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which

the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner

and contended that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the

NNR,J

petitioner and the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to

dismiss the claim petition.

6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the

counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which

reads as under:

"i) Whether the injured S.Naga Raju(petitioner) sustained injuries in - S.Naga Raju(petitioner) sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motor bike bearing No.AP-28M 3280?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii) To what relief?

7. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going

into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the

learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition and come to a conclusion

that the petitioners would be entitled for an compensation award of

Rs.15,09,824/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum.

8. Being aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the

learned Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the

appellant/Insurance Company on the ground that claimant did not

possess any valid and effective driving license to drive the motor cycle

as on the date of accident and the petitioner is responsible for the

NNR,J

accident and the Tribunal did not consider the contributory negligence

on the part of the petitioner. It is further contended that the learned

Tribunal failed to consider that after discharge from the hospital the

claimant did not take any future treatment as advised by the doctors,

and it clearly shows that the fractures/injuries received by the

claimant were cured and the petitioner was doing normal work and is

continuing his job without any help.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company further

contended that as per Ex.A7-Disability Certificate issued by the

Medical Board that the claimant sustained 45% temporary disability

and recommend for re-assessment of the injuries after two years,

however the petitioner id not re-assess the injuries till date and have

not filed latest disability certificate to prove that the petitioner has

suffered 45% permanent disability, hence the learned Tribunal ought

not have taken the 45% of disability while calculating the

compensation award and further submits that the Ex.A7-Disabilty

Certificate is issued for temporary disability and not for permanent

disability and the learned Tribunal has also awarded enormous

amounts among under other conventional heads, hence prayed this

Court to set aside the Tribunal Award and allow the present appeal.

10. Learned counsel for the claimant /respondent No.1 submits that

after considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned

NNR,J

Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs no

interference.

11. Heard, Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri S.Sudarshan Reddy, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1. None appeared for respondent No.2. Perused the

entire material on record.

12. Admittedly, the claimant has not filed cross-appeal against the

order passed by the Tribunal. As such, the claimant appear to be

satisfied with the Award and decree and the compensation awarded

by the Tribunal. Basing on the pleadings and material on record and

considering the submission made by the counsels, the only point

arose before this Court in this appeal is that:

"i) Whether the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation

ii) Whether the Tribunal had rightly consider the claimant petition filed under Section 166 (A) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and awarded just compensation to the claimant."

Point No.1 & 2:

13. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered fracture and grievous injuries

all over the body due to accident occurred on 16.12.2014 and he was

admitted in the hospital from 16.12.2014 to 23.12.2024. PW.3-

Dr.Sharath Chandra, an Orthopedic Surgeon and consultant in Balaji

NNR,J

Multi Specialty Hospital, submits that the petitioner was found to have

fractures of 1) Lt.Tiba (2)Lt.Fibula(3) Lacerated wound Lt.hand and

under went the following surgeries: (1) Inter Locking Nailing of Lt.Tibia

(2) Rush Nailing of Fibula (3) Suturing of wound and the petitioner was

admitted on 16.12.2014 and was discharged on 23.12.2014 in stable

condition and had come for follow-up regularly and was advised rest

for a period of three months after surgeries.

14. PW2-Dr.P.Madhusudan, Orthopedic Surgeon had categorically

stated that petitioner was clinically and radiologically examined and

found injuries to the left Lower Limb, impaired Reach (post Traumatic

Sequel Limbs). Due to the injuries, the petitioner would be in difficulty

in sitting, squatting and sitting with cross legs. Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2-

Charge Sheet would clearly show that due to rash and negligent

driving of the crime vehicle i.e., AP-28-M-3280, the petitioner met with

an accident and suffered the above injuries. Hence, the respondent

No.1-Driver of the Crime Vehicle and respondent No.2-Insurance

Company cannot be exonerated from liability. Accordingly, point No.1

is answered in favour of claimant and against the respondents.

15. As far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner claimed that

he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The petitioner examined PW4-

B.Murali Reddy, HR Admn., in GST Contractors Pvt. Limited,

Bowenpally and his testimony shows that the petitioner is their

NNR,J

employee as machine operator working since 2013. Ex.X3 is the

Identity Card of the petitioner, Ex.X4 is Bank Statement, Ex.A5 is

salary slip. The learned Tribunal after considering the evidence placed

by the petitioner and basing on Ex.A5 i.e., Salary Certificate of the

petitioner has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as

Rs.10.115/- which appears to be reasonable and needs no

interference.

16. The learned Tribunal has considered the disability of the

petitioner @ 45% and calculate the loss of future earning on account of

permanent disability by considering Ex.A7-Disability certificate, but on

keen perusal of the Ex.A7, this Court finds that the Medical Board has

stated in the disability certificate is issued in relation to disability of

Left Lower Limb, Impaired reach, Post Traumatic Serqual-Limbs and

not for whole body and further stated that petitioner can perform or

discharge the following duties

i. F-can perform work by manipulating with fingers, ii. PP - can perform work by pulling and pushing, iii. L-can perform work by lifting, iv. S-can perform work by sitting, v. ST-can perform work by standing, vi. V-can perform work by walking, vii. RW-can perform work by reading and writing.

NNR,J

17. It is pertinent to mention that in the Disability Certificate(Ex.A7),

dated 12.08.2016, the Medical Board has recommended for re-

assessment of the disability after a period of two years and issued the

said 'Temporary Disability Certificate', however the learned Tribunal

missed the said observation and taken the disability as permanent

disability and compute the compensation. The petitioner has also not

reassess the disability even after two years and not produced any

disability certificate after reassessment before the learned Tribunal or

in the Court.

18. In similar case, i.e., Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that the Tribunal must distinguish between

medical and functional disability. Even if a doctor certifies 45%

disability, the Tribunal may reduce or increase the functional disability

if the person can still perform gainful work and the relevant paragraph

is extracted for ready reference hereunder:

"The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured-claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and

(2011) 1 SCC 343

NNR,J

sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%."

19. Considering the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj

Kumar's case (cited above) and for the reasons stated in above

paragraphs, the disability can be taken as 'temporary disability' and as

such, this Court is inclined to reduced the disability of the petitioner

from '45%' to '20%' for calculating loss of future earning on account of

disability. The learned Tribunal has awarded an compensation under

'Medical Bills', 'Future Treatment', 'Pain and Sufferance', 'Extra-

Nourishment', Transportation Charges, Mental Agony, 'Attendant

Charges' and 'Damages to Clothes' appears to be reasonable and needs

no interference.

20. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National

Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 and

considering the age of the petitioner as 25 years which is not disputed

by either of the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added

towards future prospect to the monthly income of the petitioner.

Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to

2017 ACJ 2700

NNR,J

Rs.14,161/- (Rs.10,115/- + Rs.4,046/-). The annual income of the

petitioner would come to Rs.1,69,932/- (Rs.14,161/- X 12). Thus the

loss of future income of the petitioner on account of disability of 20%

would come to Rs.33,986/- (1,69,932 x 20%).

21. As per the column No.4 of schedule fixed in the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 3, and

considering the age of the petitioner as 25 years, the appropriate

multiplier applicable for the petitioner aged group between 21-25 years

is '18'. Thus, the total loss of future income would come to

Rs.6,11,748/- (33,986 x 18).

22. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record

and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

cited decision. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioner is

entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated

for the reasons stated above and given in the table below for easy

reference.


                Head            Amount arrived at by the   Amount arrived at by this
                                       Tribunal                    Court

     Loss of future earning         Rs.13,76,449/-              Rs.6,11,755/-

on account of disability (14,161 x 12 x 45% x 18) (14,161 x 12 x 20% x 18)

Medical Bills 1,375/- 1,375/-

        Future treatment               25,000/-                    25,000/-
       Pain and sufferance             25,000/-                    25,000/-




    2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

                                                                                 NNR,J



      Extra-Nourishment          10,000/-                    10,000/-
  Transportation Charges         10,000/-                    10,000/-
        Mental Agony             50,000/-                    50,000/-
      Attendant Charges          10,000/-                    10,000/-
      Damage to Clothes          2,000/-                      2,000/-
            Total             Rs. 15,09,824/-              Rs. 7,45,130/-

23. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, by reducing the

compensation from Rs.15,09,824/- to Rs.7,45,130/- (Rupees Seven

Lakh Forty Five Thousand and One Hundred and Thirty Rupees

only) with 7.5 % p.a. inertest from the date of petition till the date of

realization. The respondents therein are directed to deposit the said

amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from

the receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such, deposit the claimant

is permitted to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing

any surety. It is made clear if the claimant has already withdrawn the

excess compensation amount, the respondents therein are not liable

to recover the same from the claimant.