Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance Company ... vs Mattapally Santosh Kumar on 22 September, 2025
1
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
M.A.C.M.A.NOs.649 & 621 OF 2021
COMMON JUDGMENT:
Both these appeals arise out of the Order and Decree dated
03.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2017 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,
(FTC), Mancherial (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to
as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The case of the petitioner before the tribunal is that on
29.07.2013 at about 6:00 p.m., while the petitioner was going
towards ACC Mancherial, on his motor bike bearing No.AP1P-3789,
when he reached near Laxmi Theatre at Mancherial, a Lorry bearing
No.MH14AS-9277 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent
manner at a high speed, dashed the motor bike of the petitioner from
behind, as a result the petitioner fell down and sustained grievous
injuries. He was immediately shifted to Government Area Hospital,
Mancherial and from there to Renee Hospital, Karimnagar for better
treatment. He incurred huge medical expenditure, and thus he
claimed a compensation of Rs.65,00,000/-.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying the averments
of the petition with regard to the occurrence of the accident, age,
avocation and income of the petitioner. It is further contended that
the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid driving license as on
the date of the accident and thus, their company is not liable to pay
any compensation.
6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the
following issues for consideration:-
"1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that
occurred on 29.07.2013 at about 06:00 p.m., near Laxmi theatre,
Mancherial?
2. Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent
driving of Lorry bearing No.MH-14-AS-9277?
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation. If so,
how much and which of the respondents?
4. To what relief?"
7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PWs 1 and 2
and Ex.A1 to A12 , Ex.X1 and X2, Ex.C1 were marked. On behalf of
the respondents, RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked.
8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.19,38,107/-. Aggrieved by the said award
MACMA.No.649 of 2021 is filed by the Insurance Company and
MACMA.No.621 of 2021 is filed by the claimants.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
9. Heard the submissions of Smt. V. Durga, learned counsel for
the Insurance Company and Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel
for the respondent No.3.
10. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the
claimant is aged 30 years and was working as a Commission agent
and was earning around Rs.9,800/- per month, while the tribunal has
assessed his income to be very low and has granted meager amount
of compensation. He further argued that the petitioner sustained
68% permanent disability, but the tribunal failed to consider the said
aspect while awarding the compensation. He therefore, prayed to
consider the said aspects and enhance the compensation.
11. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
has submitted that the petitioner failed to file any proof of income
before the tribunal and that the commission alleged to have been
earned by the petitioner to an extent of Rs.9,800/- per month need
not be taken into consideration, as it cannot be constant every
month. She further submitted that the disability of 68% is not
supported by any document and that it is only temporary in nature
and therefore, the tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation.
She further argued that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal is
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
very high and prayed to reduce the same to 7.5%. She further
argued that the tribunal has awarded huge amounts under various
heads without any reason. She therefore, prayed to reduce the
compensation.
12. Based on the above rival contentions, this Court frames the
following points for determination:
1. Whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal is just and
reasonable.
2. Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal need
any interference?
3. To what relief.
13. Point No.1:
a) The contention of the learned counsel for the claimants is that
the tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation, while the
contention of the insurance company is that the compensation
granted by the tribunal is very high.
b) The injured-petitioner got examined as PW1 and he stated
that he used to work as a Commission Agent in Bharathi Axa
General Insurance Company and that he used to earn Rs.9,800/-
per month as he was rendering private services under one Sampath,
who is a Senior Insurance Advisor. Ex.A12 is the Certificate issued
by Bharathi Axa General Insurance Company, certifying that the
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
petitioner's work is recognized for his contribution for the period from
October 2012 to December 2012. He has also filed the IT returns
under Ex.X1 and X2 for the years 2013-2014 and 2014-2015
showing his total income as Rs.1,17,600/- in the year 2013-2014,
Rs.43,200/- for the first half of 2014-2015. Thus, he could place it on
record that he worked as an agent for Bharathi Axa General
Insurance Company and that he used to earn on an average of
Rs.9,800/- per month. Thus, based on the evidence on record, it was
held rightly by the tribunal that the petitioner used to earn Rs.9,800/-
per monthly, which is found to be justified.
c) PW2/M. Sampath Kumar who is a General Insurance Agent,
deposed that the injured-petitioner is his younger brother and that he
used to do the Insurance Business. It is further elicited from him that
following the accident, the petitioner stopped working. In his
evidence Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 are marked. In his cross examination it is
elicited that Ex.X1 and X2 are issued subsequent to the accident. No
other doctor is examined in this case.
d) RW1 is examined by the Insurance Company, contending that
the driver of the crime vehicle did not have valid driving license. In
his cross examination, it is elicited that they have not enquired about
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
the genuineness of the driving license of the driver of the crime
vehicle.
e) The injury certificate discloses that the petitioner has
sustained injuries in an accident on 29.07.2013, while the discharge
summary discloses that he was operated in the Renee Hospital. The
date of admission is on 30.07.2013 and the date of discharge is
21.08.2013. A surgery was performed on 03.08.2013. Later on
subsequently he was again admitted in 2015, as he suffered
septicemia in the right lower limb, Rs.1,80,500/- is the final inpatient
bill of Renee Hospital.
f) He has filed Ex.A6/Discharge summary, out of which one is
issued by Renee Hospital, which discloses that he was admitted in
Renee Hospital on 01.07.2015, a surgery was performed on
10.07.2015 and was discharged on 16.07.2015, and he was treated
for the following injuries i.e., 1) healed fracture right supra condylar
femur, 2) fracture right proximal tibia with LCP INSITU, 3) cellulitis
right lower limb with septicemia, 4) K/C/O psoriasis on treatment, 5)
impaired liver function, 6) healed pulmonary koch's sustained in the
accident. He has also filed other bills of purchasing medicines. Ex.A8
is the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board,
showing that he sustained 68% of disability to his right lower limb,
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequel limbs sustained in an
accident and that it is temporary disability. Therefore, an amount of
Rs.2,00,000/- is awarded under the head pain and suffering.
g) He has also filed certain bills issued by Renee Hospital for
diagnosis and also for purchase of medicines, the total bills filed by
him falls to an extent of Rs.1,17,600/- apart from the inpatient bill.
h) With regard to the medical expenses, the medical bills are filed
to an extent of Rs.1,17,600/-, one I.P bill is of Rs.1,80,500/-, total
comes up to Rs.2,98,100/-. It is common knowledge that the
petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as
transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of
Rs.10,000/- for each head is awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards
extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, Rs.10,000/-
towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards incidental
expenses is granted, total Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above
heads.
i) The record shows that he was hospitalized for two spells i.e.,
once in 2013 and again in 2015. Therefore, he must have incurred
again the expenditure under the transportation, incidental expenses
etc., Therefore, further amounts of Rs.10,000/- under each head is
awarded i.e., Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.10,000/-
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
towards transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and
Rs.10,000/- towards incidental expenses is granted, total
Rs.40,000/- is granted under the above heads. Thus, an amount of
Rs.80,000 + medical expenses of Rs.2,98,100 i.e., Rs.3,78,100/- is
awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation,
attendant charges and incidental expenses.
j) With regard to the loss of earnings, in the first spell he was in
the hospital for about 21 days and the nature of injury shows that he
again developed septicemia in 2015. So the gravity of the injuries is
such that he must have taken six months to heal in the first spell.
During the second spell, again he was admitted for 16 days, he must
have taken another three months for recovery. Therefore, an amount
of Rs.9,800 x 9 = Rs.88,200 is the amount awarded under the head
loss of earnings.
k) With regard to the loss of future earnings, the disability
certificate shows the age of the petitioner as 27 years in the year
2014, so he must have been aged 26 years as on the date of the
accident (29.07.2013). In view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar
Vs. Ajay Kumar 1, 68% of disability is scaled to 50% with regard to
the whole body and the loss of future earning capacity is assessed
2011 (10 SCC 343
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
as 25%. Therefore, adding 40% towards future prospects, the
monthly income would be Rs.13,720/- and annual income would be
Rs.1,64,640/-. The loss of future earnings would be Rs.1,64,640/- x
25% x 17= Rs.6,99,720/-.
l) In all, the claimants are entitled to the following compensation
amounts:
1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, Rs.2,00,000/-
shock, Pain and suffering
2. Loss of earnings Rs.88,200/-
3. Loss of future earnings due to disability Rs.6,99,720/-
4. Compensation under the head of 3,88,100/-
medical expenses, transport, attendant
charges, extra-nourishment and other
incidental expenses
Total 13,76,020/-
m) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled
is calculated as Rs.13,76,020/- while the Tribunal has granted
Rs.19,38,107/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal has to be reduced.
14. Point No.2:-
a) In view of the finding arrived at Point No.1, the order and
decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the
compensation from Rs.19,38,107/- to Rs.13,76,020/-.
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
b) The Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 8% on the
quantum of compensation. The contention of the counsel for
Insurance Company is that it is too high.
c) In Jadav Saroja Bai Versus Ghule Naga Rao and Another 2;
a Coordinate Bench of this High Court has granted interest @ 7.5%
per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation.
d) In Bandavath Mangla and Another Versus Bandavath
Suresh and Others 3 and National Insurance Company Limited
Versus. M. Venkateswarulu and Others 4; also interest @ 7.5%
per annum was granted on the enhanced amount of compensation.
e) In United Insurance Company Limited Versus. Bollam
Lingaiah 5; when the Tribunal has granted rate of interest @ 9% per
annum, the High Court has modified the rate of interest to 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till realization.
f) A Division Bench of this High Court in National Insurance
Company Limited Versus Jagadish Prajapathi 6; has granted 7.5
2022 SCC Online TS 606
2023 SCC Online TS 1095
2023 SCC Online TS 1170
2024 SCC Online TS 915
2024 SCC Online TS 2050
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
% per annum on the compensation from the date of petition till
realization.
g) Therefore, in the light of the above cited decisions, this Court
has been consistently granting interest @ 7.5% on the compensation
that is awarded in such cases.
h) Therefore the same is awarded in this case also. Thus, the
rate of interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced to that of 7.5%.
Hence, point No.2 is answered accordingly.
15. POINT NO.3:-
In the result MACMA.No.621 of 2021 filed by the claimants is
dismissed, while MACMA.No.649 of 2021 filed by the Insurance
Company is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated
03.05.2021 in M.V.O.P.No.104 of 2017 passed by the Chairman,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge,
(FTC), Mancherial, by reducing the compensation from 19,38,107/-
to Rs.13,76,020/- and by reducing the rate of interest from 8% to
7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.
However, the interest for the period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The
appellant in MACMA.No.649 of 2021-Insurance Company is directed
to deposit the compensation amount with accrued interest within a
ETD,J
MACMA Nos.649_621_2021
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment after deducting the amount if any already deposited. On
such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the said amount
without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Date:22.09.2025
ds
