awarded a sum of Rs. 22,23,954/- along with 9% interest p.a.
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 claimant earlier filed
by her. On 29.12.2011, the petitioner was proceeding towards
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
body. The petitioner was taken to Anupama Hospital, KPHB,
Kukatpally for treatment. The Police registered a case, vide
4. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal was
and also work as freelancer in Event management. Due to
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-Driver of the
Bus remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company
excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to
what extent and from whom?
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
iii) To what relief?
7. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and
Exs.A1 to A30 and Ex.X1 are marked on behalf of the claimant.
Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of respondents. 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 in part and granted
compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along with interest @ 9 % per
annum.
8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation
amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeals
were filed by both the claimant and respondent No.2-Insurance
Company.
9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that there is no
dispute with regard to accident and the injuries sustained by the
petitioner. The petitioner was 23 years at the time of the accident
and she was quite hale, healthy and after Graduation, the
petitioner joined Paulus Software Technologies Private Limited as
associate work. It is contended that the petitioner was very
beautiful and was having attracting natural face due to which he
was selected as freelancer in Event Management by big
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
companies, thereafter she got an opportunity to excel talent and
skill in modelling industry, where she got offer roles in Telugu
and Tamil Movies. The petitioner went to abroad for shooting of
the movies for about two month and day by day petitioner was
becoming famous as a Model, Anchor, Event Manger and Movie
Artist and the petitioner participated in many TV channels and
advertisements and she had done nearly 174 programmes as
Event Manger and her work were reflected in the newspapers
and magazines (Ex.A27 to Ex.A30) and the petitioner used to
earn Rs.20,000/- per month.
10. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that
due to accident, the petitioner suffered multiple lacerations over
right cheek scalp and right eye brow, total facial injuries causing
disfiguration of face and other injuries on all over the body. After
the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Anupama Hospital,
Hyderabad and admitted in the hospital as inpatient from
29.12.2011 to 30.12.2011 and was under IV antibiotics,
analgesics, antipyretics. Thereafter, the petitioner undergone
multiple surgeries for the disfiguration of face and underwent
surgery for her eye-lid. The petitioner has spent huge amount for
the surgeries, extra-nourishment, private attendant, hospital
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
charges. As her face was badly injured and become un-
appeaseable, the petitioner career went completely down and the
petitioner lost all her projects and suffered financially and
mentally.
11. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the
learned Tribunal having accepted the contention of the claimant
that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the crime bus and also accepted the fact that the petitioner
suffered huge financial loss and suffered 100% disability due to
face disfiguration, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken
the income of the petitioner on lower side without considering
the income certificate i.e., Ex.A17 to A30 and also oral evidence
of PW4-Sri Kottu Babu, Production and fixed notional monthly
income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/- per month and granted
less compensation. The learned Tribunal had wrongly deducted
1/3rd towards personal expenses which is against the law, as in
injury case there shall not be any deductions towards personal
expenses and also granted meager compensation under various
heads and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation
amount.
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
12. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company
contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the
excessive and exorbitant compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along
with 9% interest p.a., and the learned Tribunal grossly erred in
awarding the compensation of Rs.14,11,128/- in the absence of
disability certificate by considering 100% disability and loss of
earning in the absence of documentary evidence and further
submitted that the claimant failed to prove that the loss of future
earnings and the non-availability of future opportunities in her
career.
13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further
contended that Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards
pain and sufferance for simple injures in the absence of
pleadings and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and erred
in awarding the compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along with 9%
interest per annum under all heads which is highly excessive
and exorbitant and accordingly prayed this Court to set aside the
order passed by the Tribunal and allow the appeal filed by the
Insurance Company.
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
14. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the
claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao, learned counsel for the
Insurance Company. Perused the material on record.
15. Admittedly, the both the parties have filed appeals against
the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is
dispute regarding liability of the respondents and income of the
petitioner. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in
the present appeal and cross appeal are that:
i) Whether the respondents can be exonerated from their
liability? If so to what extent?
ii) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of
the petitioner.
iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced
compensation, if so, to what extent?
Point Nos:1 to 3
16. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered grievances injuries on
the face and all over the body due to accident occurred on
29.12.2011. The petitioner was a cine artist as on the date of
accident. Ex.A1 and A2 i.e, FIR and Charge-sheet shows that
driver of the Crime Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145 as accused.
The bus driver have admitted the offenses before the learned IX
Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad on 26.05.2012
in C.C.No.174/2012 and paid fine of Rs.500/-, however the
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
driver of the crime bus did not appear or file counter-affidavit
denying the charges leveled against him before the Tribunal or
before this Court. Therefore, it can be safely arrived that the
accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver
of Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145, hence the respondents cannot
be exonerated from their liability. Accordingly Point No.1 is
answered in favour of claimant and against respondents.
17. As far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner before
the learned Tribunal has stated she used to earn about
Rs.20,000/- per month, however as per Ex.A25, the total income
of the petitioner was shown as Rs.1,84,000/- per annum. On
keen perusal of the Ex.A25, one Sai Mohan-Le Associate has
issued the said Ex.A25, but there is no date of issuance of said
certificate and also there is no heading for issuance of such
certificate, nevertheless the petitioner has not filed any Income
Tax acknowledgment receipt issued by the Government of India,
which will be provided after filing of Income Tax return and also
the petitioner has not examined the said person who issued
Ex.A25. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the
petitioner as Rs.7,000/- which appears to be reasonable and
needs no interference.
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
18. The learned Tribunal relied upon the ruling laid down in
Rekha National Insurance Company Limited 1 wherein, it was
held that 100% functional disability shall be taken, even without
100% disability certificate, while accessing disability for the
actress who cannot work in films or Television Serials in future
due to injuries sustained on the fair and the relevant paragraphs
are extracted for read reference:
"38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly
the facial features are very important to act in the films and in
T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the
accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and
has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role
as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of
vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on
with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the
disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress
either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other
role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model.
It is in the evidence of the appellant that as per the District
Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%.
Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made
by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred
to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the
appellant's permanent disability should be treated as 100%
functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in
T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the
2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability. In
this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court
in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Mubasir
Ahmed[15]. This Court has held that loss of earning capacity
is not a substitute for percentage of physical disablement. It is
simply one of the factors taken into account to award just and
reasonable compensation. Even though the claimant does not
suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he suffers
from 100% functional disability if he loses the capacity to
pursue his work as a result of the accident. It is worthwhile to
extract paragraph no. 8 from the aforesaid judgment which
reads as under:
"8. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a
substitute for percentage of the physical disablement. It
is one of the factors taken into account. In the instant
case the doctor who examined the claimant also noted
about the functional disablement. In other words, the
doctor had taken note of the relevant factors relating to
loss of earning capacity. Without indicating any reason
or basis the High Court held that there was 100% loss
of earning capacity.""
19. In view of the judgment cited above, the learned Tribunal has
rightly taken the 100% functional disability, as the petitioner's face
was disfigure and for the film actress or cine artist, the physical
appearance particularly the facial features are very important to
act in films.
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
20. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.42,000/- towards loss of
earning, Rs.5,00,00/- towards pain and sufferance,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.67,954/-
towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- awarded under
transport and other expenditure which appears to be reasonable
and on ground realties and needs no interference.
21. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3rd of personal
expenses from the notional income of the petitioner, which ought
not have been deducted and the personal deduction applies in
death cases. In Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti
Jadhav (non-reportable) 2, dated 05.07.2023 held that there
could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses
in the injury cases and the relevant paragraph is extracted
hereunder for ready reference:
"The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards
personal expenses. The present case being not of death
and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the
same being by a survivor in the accident with severe
injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not
be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. We
do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment
of this Court in the case of Lalan D. (supra)."
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
22. Hence considering the above judgment, it can be safely
arrived that it is well established principle that claimant is
entitled for full notional income without any personal dedication
in injury cases.
23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on
record and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the above cited decisions this Court is of the opinion that the
claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as
modified and recalculated as below and given in the table for
easy reference.
24. The monthly income of the petitioner can be notionally
taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 3 and
considering the age of the petitioner as 23 years, which is not
disputed by either of the parties, additional 40% of the income
has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income
of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner
would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/-) and the
3 2017 ACJ 2700
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,17,600/-
(Rs.9,800/- x 12 months).
25. As per the column No.4 of Table fixed in the judgment of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 4, and considering the age of the petitioner as 23
years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner's
age is '18'. Thus, the total loss of income the petitioner would
come with 100% disability come to Rs.21,16,800/- (117,600/- x
18 x 100%).
Head Amount arrived at by the Amount arrived at by this
Tribunal Court
Loss of future earning Rs.14,11,128/- Rs.21,16,800/-
on account of disability
Six Month Loss of
Rs.42,000/- Rs.42,000/-
earnings
Pain and Sufferance Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/-
Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/-
Medical Expenses Rs.67,954/- Rs.67,954/-
Transportation and other Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
expenses
Total Rs. 22,31,082/- Rs. 29,36,754/-
Rounded off to 22,23,954/-
26. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.ANo.201 of 2020 filed by the
claimant is allowed and M.A.C.M.A. No.441 of 2020 filed by the
Insurance Company is dismissed. The claimant is entitled for an
compensation of Rs. 29,36,754/- (Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
NNR,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.201 & 441 of 2020
Six Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty Four Rupees
only) with interest at the rate @ 9 % p.a. on the enhanced
amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The
respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together
with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount
already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a
copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled
to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However,
the claimant is directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the
enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs.
27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J
08.09.2025
SHA
