Telangana High Court
Ch. Rajeshwar vs Mekalolu Yadaiah on 12 September, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1123 and 1253 of 2023
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in
MACMA No.1123 of 2023 and respondent No.1 in MACMA No.1253 of
2023 and Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant in
MACMA No.1253 of 2023 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.1123 of
2023. Perused the entire record.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were
arrayed in the claim petition.
3. The MACMA No.1123 of 2023 is filed by the claimant and
MACMA No.1253 of 2023 is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved
by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-
cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in
M.V.O.P.No.1916 of 2016, dated 30.12.2022. The Insurance company is
questioning the quantum of compensation awarded while the claimant is
seeking enhancement of compensation.
4. The claim petition was filed on account of the injuries sustained by
the claimant in an accident that occurred on 11.09.2014 at 1.30 pm., when
he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-CV-1216 from KPHB
to JSB Honda show room. When the motorcycle reached Metro, while
taking 'U' turn, one goods vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-7657 came in
rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant's motorcycle from
backside causing his fall, resulting in crush injury to right hand, fracture to
right wrist, fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 fingers, abdominal injury, deep cut
injury to left knee, head injury and other blunt injuries all over the body. In
view of the injuries sustained, the claim petition is filed seeking
compensation ofRs.35,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the
respondents jointly and severally.
5. The claimant got examined P1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A10.
Respondent No.2/Insurance Company did not examine any witness but got
marked Ex.B1/True copy of policy. Upon considering the evidence
adduced, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.27,00,700/- with
interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant as well as
Insurance company preferred appeals.
6. The Insurance Company in grounds of appeal alleged that the
Tribunal erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.20,000/- per
month in the absence of proof of income. Further, it is alleged that the
disability percentage is taken at 60% when there is a gap of six years
between date of accident and the disability certificate taken. The disability
certificate is with respect to one limb but not total body and the claimant
can work as a Marketing Manager. Awarding of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain
and suffering according to the Insurance Company is on the higher side and
therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside.
7. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation alleging that the
Tribunal has erroneously considered his disability at 50%, that the medical
bills are filed for Rs.3,19,384/- but Rs.2,45,700/- only granted. The
marriage prospects of the claimant have decreased due to injuries and said
aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. Further, loss of amenities, loss
of social status and mental agony are not considered. Lastly, the Tribunal
awarded interest at 6% per annum which ought to have been 9% per
annum.
8. The claimant is allegedly a Marketing Manager with income of
Rs.30,000/- per month. No document is filed in proof of income nor
avocation. Ex.A10 is the bank statement which shows income varying from
Rs.500/- to Rs.49,107/-. The Tribunal considering the variation has taken
the aggregate income at Rs.20,000/- per month for a 21 year old boy that
too for the year 2016. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to
interfere with said finding as the notional income for all practical purposes
for an inexperienced person is considered on higher side, that too in
absence of convincing evidence about the claimant being a Marketing
Manager.
9. The Tribunal has taken the functional disability at 50% on the basis
evidence of PW2/doctor who deposed that the claimant has supination-
pronation fixed wrist joint, restricted MP joint movements of fingers and
thumb and IP joints, there is weak grip strength and pinching capacity.
Further, the claimant cannot carry any weight with right hand and cannot
feed himself or hold glass like a normal person and cannot drive a vehicle.
Though the permanent disability is at 60 to 65%, the functional disability is
considered at 50% as claimant's work as Marketing Manager does not
require lifting heavy weights or holding any objects. However, it cannot be
denied that the claimant would face physical inconvenience in performing
his job as Manager as there is inability to drive a vehicle. For a Marketing
person, mobility is important. Therefore, the Tribunal considering the
disability at 50% is considered to be appropriate. However, while
calculating the loss of earnings due to disability, the future prospects at
40% were not considered. Thus, by considering the future prospects at
40%, the claimant is entitled to loss of earnings at Rs.30,24,000/- (Annual
income Rs.20,000 x 12=2,40,000/-, Future prospects 40%, Multiplier '18',
disability 50%).
10. The claimant sustained three fracture injuries. Therefore, grant of
Rs.75,000/- towards fracture injuries, Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and
suffering, Rs.50,000- towards extra nourishment and Rs.20,000/- towards
transport and attendant charges is appropriate. The billing manager of Icon
hospital as PW3 deposed that final bill of Rs.1,00,700/- is paid by the
claimant. Further, the claimant paid Rs.1,45,000/- towards final bill at
Remedy hospital, Kukatpally. The medical expenses are granted as per
evidence given by PW3/billing in-charge of Icon hospital, Kukatpally and
PW4/billing in-charge of Remedy hospital, Kukatpally. Therefore, no fault
can be found with the medical expenses at Rs.2,45,700/- awarded by the
Tribunal. The inability to drive a vehicle shows a serious injury to leg.
Therefore, Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of amenities and
Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of marriage prospects. In total, the
claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.37,64,700/- in all respects. The
interest at 6% per annum awarded by the Tribunal on the compensation
awarded by it is enhanced to 7.5%.
11. Coming to the MACMA No.1253 of 2023 filed by the Insurance
Company, the Insurance Company has challenged the award questioning
the income of the claimant taken at Rs.20,000/- per month in the absence of
income proof and taking the functional disability at 50%. As discussed
above, the Tribunal has considered the bank statement marked under
Ex.A10 for arriving at an average monthly income which is confirmed by
this Court and therefore, no interference is warranted on the said count.
Further, though the percentage of disability was said to be at 60 to 65%, the
functional disability is taken at 50% as the mobility of the claimant is
seriously affected and effectively reducing his ability to move from place to
place as Marketing Manager. Lastly, awarding Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain
and suffering is questioned. When the claimant suffered multiple fractures
and is going to suffer with for partial and permanent disability at 60 to
65%, granting Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and
reasonable and the same is not interfered with. As such, the MACMA filed
by the Insurance company is liable to be dismissed.
12. In the result, the MACMA No.1123 of 2023 filed by the claimant is
allowed by enhancing the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal
from Rs.27,00,700/- to Rs.37,64,700/-. The claimant is entitled to interest
at 7.5% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.27,00,700/-, which
was granted by the Tribunal from the date of filing of petition till
realization. However, the claimant is entitled to interest at 9% per annum
on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition till the date of
realization. The respondents shall deposit the compensation amount within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment.
On such deposit, claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire
amount, without furnishing any security. The claimant shall pay the deficit
Court fee on the enhanced compensation. The MACMA No.1253 of 2023
is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in these appeals, shall stand
closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 12.09.2025
GVL
