Telangana High Court
Palwai Srinivas Reddy vs Are Ramulu on 17 September, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
1
macma_511_2019
NBK, J
THE HON' BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
M.A.C.M.A No.511 of2019
JUDGMENT:
The appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'the Tribunal').
He filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.10.2018 passed by the
Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 240 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the
Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,03,290/- as compensation to the
claimant for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that
occurred on 03.04.2016 at 3:30 PM, while he was travelling in an auto
(bearing No. TS-09-UA-4709). The accident occurred due to a collision
between the auto and an oncoming motorcycle, caused by the rash and
negligent driving of the auto driver, on the outskirts of Bujilapuram village in
Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. Dissatisfied with the quantum of
compensation, the claimant filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties will
hereinafter be referred to as the claimant and the insurance company.
2. Heard Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant, and
Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-insurance
company. Perused the record.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the
claimant was employed as the Manager of a poultry farm and was earning
around Rs.20,000/- per month. She submits that the Tribunal ought to have
considered his income as Rs.20,000/- per month; that the District Medical
Board assessed the claimant's disability at 40%, and therefore, the Tribunal
ought to have granted appropriate compensation under that head; that the
Tribunal awarded interest at 7% instead of 9%; that it should have awarded
macma_511_2019
NBK, J
Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs; that Rs.15,000/- should have been
awarded towards loss of earnings instead of Rs.6,000/-; and that
Rs.1,00,000/- should have been awarded towards medical expenses instead of
Rs.43,290/-. She contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a total
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,03,290/-.
4. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company justifies the
impugned judgment and award, contending that there is no evidence to
support the claim that the claimant earned Rs.20,000/- per month. He submits
that the compensation awarded under the various heads does not warrant
interference.
5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it
may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 03.04.2016 at 3:30 PM
due to a collision between the auto (No. TS-09-UA-4709), in which the
claimant was travelling, and an oncoming motorcycle is not in dispute.
5.1 With regard to the claimant's income, the Tribunal specifically
recorded that the claimant had not produced any evidence to support his
assertion that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a poultry farm
manager. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per
month. Mere assertion that the claimant worked as a manager and earned
Rs.20,000/- per month is insufficient; such a claim must be supported by
cogent evidence. As there is admittedly no such evidence, this Court is of the
view that the Tribunal's assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- per month is
reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5.2 Regarding medical treatment and the expenditure incurred, the
claimant produced Ex.A7--medical bills amounting to Rs.43,291/- before the
Tribunal. He suffered a grievous head injury, multiple bodily injuries, a
macma_511_2019
NBK, J
closed fracture of the right femur shaft, and a fracture of the right patella. He
also suffered a permanent disability of 40%, as reflected in Ex.A5--the
disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The Tribunal
awarded Rs.43,290/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. In
view of the nature of the injuries sustained, this Court is inclined to enhance
the compensation under this head to Rs.75,000/-.
5.3 PW-2, the doctor who treated the claimant, deposed that the
claimant (PW-1) suffered 40% disability due to injury to the right knee joint
and is unable to move his right knee. Although the Tribunal noted that PW-2
was not clear about the basis on which he assessed the disability at 40%, the
Ex.A5 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board is not
disputed. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the permanent disability
at 40%.
5.4 The claimant was 30 years old at the time of the accident and
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the judgment in National Insurance
Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi1, future prospects should be considered at
40% for persons under 40 years of age. Thus, the claimant's monthly income
is assessed at Rs.8,400/- (Rs.6,000 + 40%). Given that he suffered 40%
permanent disability, the resultant loss of income would be Rs.3,360/- per
month, amounting to Rs.40,320/- per annum. As per Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation2, the appropriate multiplier for the age group of 25-
30 is 17. Accordingly, the total loss of earning capacity due to the permanent
disability is Rs.40,320 x 17 = Rs.6,85,440/-. The Tribunal had awarded
Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability and pain and suffering. In light of
the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimant is entitled to
(2017) 16 SCC 680
(2009) 6 SCC 121
macma_511_2019
NBK, J
Rs.6,85,440/- towards loss of earning capacity. Additionally, this Court
awards Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, bringing the total to
Rs.7,00,000/- (rounded off).
5.5 Furthermore, as this is a claim petition filed by the injured
person, no deduction can be made towards personal expenses, as held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rahul Ganpatrao Sable v. Laxman Maruti
Jadhav3. At paragraph 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier
judgment in Lalan D. v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 4, reaffirmed this
legal position.
"Deduction towards personal expenses.
16. 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)."
5.6 The Tribunal awarded Rs.2,000/- towards transport charges,
Rs.2,000/- towards damage to clothes and other items, and Rs.6,000/-
towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. This Court finds the
amounts awarded under these heads to be just and reasonable.
6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the compensation is enhanced as
follows:
Head Amount awarded Amount awarded
by the Tribunal by this Court
Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.6,000 Rs.6,000
Transport charges Rs.2,000 Rs.2,000
Medical expenses and nourishment Rs.43,290 Rs.75,000
Damages to clothes Rs.2,000 Rs.2,000
Loss of earnings due to permanent disability Rs.50,000 Rs.7,00,000
(2023) 13 SCC 334
(2020) 9 SCC 805
macma_511_2019
NBK, J
and pain and suffering
Total Rs.1,03,290 Rs.7,85,000
7. In Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh5, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
the Court/Tribunal must award just compensation and that it may enhance the
compensation if warranted by the facts. In light of the disparity between the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that calculated in accordance with
the law laid down in Pranay Sethi (supra) and Sarla Verma (supra), this
Court finds the present case to be fit for enhancement in line with the
principles set out in Nagappa (supra). However, in view of Sarla Verma
(supra), the interest rate is reduced from 7% to 6% per annum, from the date
of the claim petition until the date of actual payment.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation to
Rs.7,85,000/-, while reducing the interest rate to 6% per annum uniformly
from the date of the claim petition until the date of actual payment. The
claimant shall pay the court fee on the enhanced compensation. Any amounts
already paid or deposited towards compensation, if any, shall be duly taken
into account while disbursing the enhanced compensation. Miscellaneous
petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
17th September, 2025
ksm
2003 (2) SCC 274
