United India Insurance Co., Ltd. vs M. Srinivas And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 5621 Tel

Telangana High Court

United India Insurance Co., Ltd. vs M. Srinivas And Another on 22 September, 2025

                                  1




      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.95 OF 2021

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by

the Order and Decree dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017

passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional

Chief Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad (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

20.12.2016, while the petitioner was going on his motor bike bearing

No.AP-15AQ-6356 from Theegalguttapalli Village to Choppadandi, at

about 12:30 p.m., one Mahindra Van bearing No.TS02-UA-8984

being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high

speed, dashed the vehicle of the petitioner, due to which he fell

down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to

Prathima Hospital, for treatment. He incurred huge medical

expenses. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

5. The respondent No.2 has filed counter denying 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 crime vehicle did not possess valid driving license

as on the date of the accident and that they are not liable to pay any

compensation.

6. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the

following issues for trial:-

1. "Whether the petitioner/injured-M. Srinivas sustained injuries in motor vehicle accident and whether such accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Mahindra Van bearing No.TS-02-UA-8984?

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

3. To what relief?"

7. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined PW1 to 4

and got marked Exs.A1 to A12. On behalf of the respondents, RWs

1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.B1, B2 and Ex.X1, X2.

8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a

compensation of Rs.21,84,298/-. Aggrieved by the said order and

decree, the present appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

9. Heard the submissions of Sri Samba Siva Rao, learned

Standing Counsel for the appellant and Smt. P. Rajeshwari, learned

counsel for respondent No.1.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the

petitioners have not mentioned that the petitioner was removed from

service from the society, and he has argued that the petitioner got

filed two disability certificates, Ex.A8 discloses 70% disability while

Ex.A9 discloses 65% disability, which causes suspicion on the

evidence lead by the petitioner. He further argued that PW2 is the

doctor who treated the petitioner, who stated that the petitioner was

treated conservatively, which goes to show that the petitioner has

not suffered any fracture injuries. He thus, prayed to reduce the

compensation. He further submitted that the disability certificates

filed by the petitioner are not supported by any X-rays or any other

evidence. He therefore, prayed to reduce the quantum of

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has

submitted that the petitioner has lost his job due to the disability

sustained by him in the accident and that previously he used to earn

Rs.25,000/- per month and that they have also filed Salary

Certificate before the tribunal. And now they have filed a letter issued ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

by the Railway Co-operative Society, stating that he is removed from

his job. He therefore, prayed to consider the earnings of the

petitioner and prayed to enhance the compensation, though, they

have not filed any appeal or Cross Objection.

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 appellant is that the compensation

granted by the Tribunal is too high. The contention of the petitioner

is that he used to work as a Hamali and used to earn Rs.25,000/- per

month. In support of his case, he got examined PW4.

b) PW4 who is the President of Hamali Railway Cooperative

Society, Karimnagar, he deposed before the tribunal that their

society paid the petitioner a salary of Rs.25,000/- per month as he

used to work as a Railway Goods Transport Hamali in Karimnagar

Railway Station. It is elicited from him that Hamali work is totally a

hard work and after the accident, the petitioner did not attend to work ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

and he is walking with support of a stick and that he issued

Ex.A11/income certificate of the petitioner. In his cross examination,

it is elicited that they maintain registers, but has not produced the

same.

c) A perusal of Ex.A11 reveals that it is a letter issued by PW4 on

the Letter Head of "Tirumala Srinivasa South Central Railway Goods

Transport Hamali and Labour Contract Cooperative Society Limited,

Karimnagar." It is mentioned in the said letter dated 29.11.2018 that

the petitioner was paid Rs.25,000/- salary and Rs.4,000/-

commission and it is a Dhruvikarana Pathram. Ex.A10 is the Identity

Card of the petitioner issued by the Hamali Society. Thus, it is

elicited that he used to work as hamali in the Cooperative Society.

The registers are not produced and the Ex.A11 also does not reveal

that it is a salary certificate, but it is brought out through the said

exhibits that the petitioner worked as a Hamali in Railways.

Therefore, considering the evidence on record, earnings as

assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.18,000/- per month is

opined to be just and proper.

d) Learned counsel for the respondents filed a document along

with a Memo before this Court and prayed to consider the same

saying that the petitioner has lost his job. It is pertinent to take note ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

of the fact that this is a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, arising out of the

Order and Decree passed by the tribunal. The respondent cannot file

any document without a proper petition to consider the same. The

document is dated 05.12.2020 and the order and decree dated

20.03.2020, that means the documents has been obtained

subsequent to the decree passed by the tribunal and the accident

pertains to the year 2016. If at all the petitioner was effected so

badly, he could have obtained the said certificate much prior during

the pendency of the case before the tribunal, but has not obtained

the same. Moreover, he has filed two disability certificates under

Ex.A8 and Ex.A9. Ex.A8 is the disability certificate issued on

09.11.2017 by District Medical Board, which shows that he sustained

70% disability, which is partial permanent in nature, caused to right

lower limb impaired reach, due to post traumatic sequel limbs

suffered in the accident. Ex.A9 is the another disability certificate

relied upon by the petitioner, issued by Dr. Sathish Chander, which

is obtained on 05.03.2018 disclosing that he suffered 65% of

permanent partial disability stating that he is unfit to do Railway

Hamali Work. He has also got examined the doctors to prove the

nature of injuries suffered by him and also the treatment underwent

by him.

ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

e) PW2/Dr. Satish Chander, who issued Ex.A9, is an

Orthopaedic Surgeon at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. He stated

that the petitioner approached him with pain and swelling in the site

of the injury and that he was initially treated in NIMS Hospital for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident. Upon examination, the

following injuries were identified i.e., 1) Grade-II compound fracture

distal 1/3 right tibia & fibula, 2) Right side posterior dislocation of Hip

joint with communated acetabular fracture, 3) Right tibia patellar

fracture lateral, 4) Right knee joint ACL aulusion fracture, 5) pain,

swelling, deformatory of right knee and that he examined the

petitioner and found that he has the difficulty of bending due to hip

vestibular fracture and that he was unfit for any hard work or manual

work. In future, he may require one more surgery for removal of

implants, which would cost around Rs.40,000/-. In his cross

examination, it is elicited that he treated the petitioner conservatively

after taking an X-ray at the time of treatment and that he has not

conducted any surgery, and that the petitioner also came for follow

up treatment and that he has not issued any estimation certificate for

removal of implants.

f) PW3/ Dr. P. Chandra Shekar, is an Orthopaedic Surgeon at

NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, he is one among the team of doctors ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

who treated the petitioner. His evidence reveals that he was

admitted at NIMS Hospital on 22.12.2016 with a history of injuries

sustained in the accident on 20.12.2016 and that he was found to

have sustained the following injuries i.e., 1) closed fracture right

acetablular with right hip dislocation, 2) right tibial spine avulsion

fracture right knee with subluxation, 3) Grade-II compound fracture

both bones digital 1/3 right leg. They treated him with open reduction

and relocation of right hip plating and also rush nailing of both bones

of right leg. Ex.A4 is the MLC issued by their hospital. It is further

elicited from him that Ex.A6, A7/discharge record and some medical

bills under Ex.A12 are issued by their hospital. Nothing material was

elicited from him during cross examination to dislodge his evidence.

Ex.A4/Medico Legal Case record issued by NIMS hospital which

shows that the petitioner sustained laceration over dorsum of right

foot, wound over medial right leg, open deep wound over the leg

near the knee and swelling and tenderness on the right side of pelvis

and that X-rays were taken and the reports were awaited, he was

referred to Orthopaedic Department. Ex.A5 is the discharge

summary disclosing that he was treated in the causality ward for the

said injuries. He was admitted on 22.12.2016 and was discharged on

23.12.2016. Ex.A6 is the discharge record, Ex.A4 is another

discharge summary of NIMS Hospital, wherein it shows that he was ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

admitted on 24.12.2016 and discharged on 31.12.2016. During the

inpatient treatment, he was operated on 27.12.2016. Thus, all these

discharge summaries and also the evidence of PW2 and 3 show that

the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in the accident and

was treated as inpatient in NIMS Hospital, after which he also went

to follow up treatment to PW2. Thus, he must have underwent acute

pain and suffering during the period of recovery. Hence, an amount

of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering.

g) It is also revealed from the evidence of PW2 and the disability

certificate issued by the District Medical Board that he suffered 70%

disability. The petitioner has also taken another disability certificate

after two years, which shows 65% disability. Therefore, the disability

certificate issued by the District Medical Board can be relied upon,

while awarding the compensation. No estimation is submitted by the

petitioner to show the future expenses, hence, the same need not be

awarded. It is also admitted by PW2 that he has not given any

estimation for future treatment.

h) With regard to the medical bills it is awarded to the extent of

bills filed by him i.e., Rs.25,698/-. It is the common knowledge that

the petitioner must have incurred other incidental expenses such as

transportation, extra-nourishment. Therefore an amount of ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

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. Thus, an amount of Rs.65,698/- (25,698/- + 40,000/-)is

awarded under the heads medical expenses, transportation,

attendant charges and incidental expenses.

i) Depending on the injuries, he must have taken six months to

recover from the said injuries. Therefore, loss of earnings is

assessed for a period of six months i.e., Rs.18,000/- x 6 which

comes up to Rs.1,08,000/-.

j) The disability as disclosed by Ex.A8 shows that though it is

permanent in nature, it is a partial disability to right lower limb to the

extent of 70%. In view of the dicta laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay

Kumar 1, the disability has to be scaled down to that of whole body

and then to the loss of functional disability. The petitioner used to

work as a Hamali and though he may not be able to continue to work

as a Hamali after the accident, due to the said disability, he can as

well attend to other kind of works, which are mentioned in the said

disability certificate that he can perform work by manipulating with

2011 (10 SCC 343 ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

fingers by pulling and pushing, by lifting, by sitting, by standing, by

reading and by writing. Thus, it does not cause 100% functional

disability or the total 70% functional disability as seen from the

disability certificate. Therefore, the same is scaled down to 50% to

the whole body and loss of functional disability is assessed as 40%

as he is an illiterate and may not be able to do job, where he can

read and write, but he can do work only with his hands in a sitting

position. Therefore, 40% functional disability is assessed and the

same is calculated toward the loss of future earnings. The earnings

assessed by the tribunal as Rs.18,000/- per month is found to be just

and reasonable. The injured is aged 41 years as deposed by the

petitioner himself. Therefore, adding 25% towards future prospects,

the monthly income would be Rs.18,000/- x 25% = Rs.4,500/- which

comes to Rs.22,500/-. The loss of future earnings would be

Rs.22,500 x12 = Rs.2,70,000 x 40% x 14= Rs.1512,000/-.

k) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following compensation

amounts:

1. Compensation under the head 'injuries, 1,00,000/-

shock, Pain and suffering

2. Loss of earnings (18,000 x6) 1,08,000/-

3. Loss of future earnings due to disability 15,12,000/-

5. Compensation under the head of 65,698/-

medical expenses, transport, attendant charges, extra-nourishment and other incidental expenses ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

Total 17,85,698/-

l) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled

is calculated as Rs.17,85,698 /- while the Tribunal has granted

Rs.21,84,298/- Hence, it is held that the compensation awarded by

the Tribunal has to be reduced.

Hence, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered accordingly.

14. Point No.3:-

In view of the findings arrived at Point Nos.1 & 2, the order

and decree of the Tribunal need to be modified reducing the

compensation from Rs.21,84,298/- to 17,85,698/-.

Point No.3 is answered accordingly.

15. Point No.4:-

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the Order

and Decree dated 20.03.2020 in M.V.O.P.No.11 of 2017 passed by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXVII Additional Chief

Judge, FAC XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Secunderabad, by reducing the compensation from Rs.21,84,298/-

to 17,85,698/-, and the compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The

claimants shall pay the deficit Court fee. However, the interest for the ETD,J MACMA No.95_2021

period of delay, if any, is forfeited. The appellant-Insurance

Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount with

accrued interest within a 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-respondent No.1

is entitled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any

security, as per their respective shares as allotted by the Tribunal.

No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall

stand closed.

____________________________ JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA Date:22.09.2025 ds