Partly allowed

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. K.Anji Reddy

Telangana HC6 Dec 2023MACMA/165/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana allowed the claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation and rejected the insurer's appeal. The Court enhanced disability from 20% to 80% due to amputation and affirmed future prospects compensation.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 52,18,325/- from Rs. 19,36,745/-; future prospects compensation included.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Vs K.Anji… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

t³³⁷⁹ I

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUST]CE N.TUKARAMJI

¶8

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 544 OF 201 6 AND

¶9

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: '165 OF 2016

¶10

Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in O.P,No.2147 ot 2012 dated 14.10.2015 on the file of the Court of the Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

¶11

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 544 OF 2016

¶12

Between:

¶13

K Anji Reddy, S/o K. Narsimha Reddy, Occ Employee, R/o.H.No.'17-2-558111N2, Madannapel, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶14

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶15

AND

¶16

1 . Budhiram Rajaram Yadav, S/o Prabhudas Kakkar, Occ Business, Rl/o.No.N-2, Bari Highway Road, Bavala Ahmedabad, Gujarat State.

¶17

The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager Reliance General lnsurance Building, lll Floor Above Matlik Cars. Tata Motors, 3'd Street, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad-500029.

¶18

,..Respondents/Respondents

¶19

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶20

Petition under Order XLI Rule 27 R!/w 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to receive the documents as additional evidence; the same may be marked from Ex. A19 to Ex. A30 in OP 214712012 on the file of Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Cum ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad otherwrse I will be put to great loss and injury in the circumstances of the case.

¶21

¶22

Counsel for the Appellant : STi JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : Sri HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶23

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 165 OF 2016

¶24

Between:

¶25

The Reliance General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep by its Regional Manager, Office at 4-1-327 to 337, lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road, Hyderabad.500001.

¶26

...AppellanU2nd Respondent

¶27

AND

¶28

1 . K Anji Reddy, Sio K. Narsimha Reddy, Occ Employee, R/o.H.No.17-2558111N2, Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad, Telangana State.

¶29

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶30

B Ralaram Yadav, S/o Prabhudas Kakkar, Occ Business, Rl/o.No.N-2, Bari Highway Road, Bavala Ahmedabad, Gujarat State.

¶31

...RespondenU1"t Petitioner

¶32

NO: 2 OF 201 MACMAMP. NO: 380 OF 2016

¶33

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of operation of decree dated 14-10-2015 in M.V.O.P.N0.2147 ol 2012 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum-ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad, pending disposal of the main MACMA.

¶34

Counsel for the Appellant : Sri HARINATH REDDY SOMA

¶35

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY The Court delivered the following : COMMON JUDGMENT

¶36

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

¶37

AND

¶38

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶39

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.5d4 and 165 of 2016

¶40

COMMONJUDGMENT (per Hon'ble Sri Justice P.SAM KOSHY)

¶41

Heard Mr.Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, leamed counsel for the appellant and Mr.Harinath Reddy, leamed counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶42

M.A.C.M.A.No.544 of 2016 is an appeal preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement and M.A.C.M.A.No.l65 of 2016 is an appeal preferred by the lnsurance Company filed challenging the award dated 14.10.2015, in M.V.O.P.No.2|47 of 2012, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I[ Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad(fbr short 'the Tribunat')

¶43

Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in the course of deciding the claim application under Section 166 of M.V.Act, 1988 has awarded compensation ol Rs.19,36,745l- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date ofjudgrnent and 60/o per annum thereafter 4. For convenience sake we decide to proceed the appeal of the Insurance Cornpany flrst i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No. 165 of 2016.

¶44

¶45

¶46

The only Ground of challenge was that Tribunal^{has not properly} appreciated the fact that there was no actual loss of^{incomecaused to the} petitioner because of the disability sustained. As the^{witness fromthe} employer i.e., PW-6 has accepted the lact that the company,^{as such has} not discontinued the services of the claimant and they^{were ready to} continue him in their employment, but it was the claimant^himselfwho had stopped coming to employment. Therefore, it cannot be assumed^that there was total loss of earning capacity. To that extent the^{award ought to} have been interfered with.

¶47

However, the perusal ol the pleadings would clearly reflect that the accident that occurred on 07.05.201 2 invotving the claimant Mr.K.Anji Reddy is not in dispute. The vehicle involved in the accident^{also is not} in dispute. The offending vehicle being insured by the Reliance Insurance Company is also not in dispute.

¶48

Admittedly, as a result of the said accident, the claimant suffered grievous injuries and in the process, he lost his right leg above the kree, which has to be amputated. In addition, thcre^were other^grievous injuries also suffered. The medical board^rvhich has^examinedthe claimant assessed the over all disability at 80% and the^{disabilitycaused} on account of the amputation of right leg above^{knee itsell'was600%.}

¶49

¶50

//,

¶51

In the given^{admitted factual matrix of the case, we are of the} considered opinion^{that the contentionof the Insurancecompany that} there was no loss of^{earning capacity on the basis of the statementof} PW-6 does not found^{meritas admittedlythe claimant was workingas} Machine Operator^{and with the amputationof his right leg above the} knee, it would had^{been dilficultfor him to discharge the dutiesof a} Machine Operator^{thereafter.On account of the loss of the right leg} above the knee,^{there woutdhad definitety been great hampercausedso} far as the mobility^{is concemed of the claimant is concerned.Particularly} while discharging the^{duties as a Machineoperatorthat too in a tyre} company. As the^{petitionerwas said to have been workingin the factory} of the MRF Company.

¶52

g. The appeal of the^{lnsurance Cornpany i-e., M'A'C'M'A'No'165of} 2016 thus finds^{no meritand rhc samedeserves to be and is accordingly} rejected.

¶53

So far as the claim^{tbr enhancementfiled by the claimant is} concemed i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.544^{ol20l 6.}

¶54

Leamed counsel^{tbr the appeltant primarilycontended that though} the medical board had^{assessedthe overall disabilityof the claimant at}

¶55

g0% and the loss olright leg above the knee itself amounts^{to 60% of the} disability. The^{assessment ol l0% b1, the -l-ribunalis withoutany sound} \ .-r

¶56

¶57

basis and the said finding to the aforesaid extent is perverse. It was the contention of the petitioner that the Tribunar also has erred in as much as assessing the monthly income of the craimant and assessing Rs. 10,g46 as the income, whereas the claimant infact was eam ing Rs. 17,000/_ monthly which stood established from the pay srip which was produced before the Tribunal i.e., Al3 and Al4. proved by rhe wirness from rhe employer PW-6, who has accepted the employee and the salary being paid to the claimant.

¶58

True it is that the witness from the employer who has accepted the fact that the emproyer as such has not struck down the name of the claimant/employee from the roles of MRF company. However, what is to be actua,y visualized is the fact that the claimant herein as a resurt of the accident had to undergo amputation of his right leg above the knee which definitely has hampered the movement of the craimant and in the process he was unable to report for duty' That by itserfshourd nor be construed as if he was still on the roles of the MRF company ancl there rvas no loss of eamrng capacity on the part of the claimant. 13. Further, as regards the income assessed by the _lribunal again PW-6 categorically accepted the monthly income of. thc claimant at Rs. I 7,000/- as would be evident from A I 3 and A I 4. .l_he other deducrion that were reflected were all statutory deductions which rr,ere all under the

¶59

¶60

ta.

¶61

welfare measure^{receivable by the claimant at the end of his employment'} for example^{provident fund, group insuranceetc' The date of accident} was on 07.05.2012,^{evenaccepting Rs. t7,000/-aS the monthlywages, the} yearly income^{would had cometo Rs'2'04'2041-'If that said amountis} taken into^{cbnsideration, even then it is wetl below the taxableincome} under the lncome^{Tax Act. Therefore, the entire gross incomeof the} claimant had^{to be assessedas the income for the purpose of} quantifi cation^{of comPensation'}

¶62

As^{regard, the disability part is concemed' the claimant have} examined PW-2^{as the Doctor,who has in very categoricalterms} accepted^{the fact that the disabilitycaused becuase of the amputation is} 60%. However,^{since the claimanthad sulfered other grievous injuries} also, the^{over all the disability assessedwas at 8070' There is no} evidence in^{rebuttalled by the [nsurancecon.rpany or by any of the} respondents^{to disprove the aforesaidcontention'}

¶63

In the^{givencircumstances'only because PW-6has stated that the} name of the^{claimanthas not been struck down lrom the roles of the} MRF company^{itself cannot lead to a conclusion that there is no loss of} earning capacity^{and in the process of assessing ol 2Oo/oas the disability} by the Tribunal^{seemsto be erroncous tinding tiable to be inteife[dwith'} Accepting^{the evidence ol PW-2' i'e} '^{the Doctor we assessed the}

¶64

¶65

disability of the claimant at 80%o rather than 20%o as assessed by the Tribunal and proceed to quantifu the compensation accordingly. Rs. 17,0001 as the monthly wages and yearly income comes to Rs, 2,04,204/- which if multiplied applying the multiplier of l5 would come to Rs.30,60,000/-. In terms of the judgment of rhe Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National lnsurance Corporation Vs. Pranay Sethir the claimant would also be entitled for compensation under future prospects @ 50% as he was having a regular employment with the MRF company. 50% of Rs.30,60,000/- would come to Rs.15,30,000/-. Borh of which added together would come to Rs.45,90,000. Accepting 80% as the disability of the claimant 80% of the aforesaid amount would come to Rs.36,72,000/-.

¶66

Accordingly, we assess the loss of future income at Rs.36,72,000iinstead of Rs.3,90,4201-, as assessed by the Tribunal. Rest of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal including the rate of interest awarded remains intact. As such the total compensation pavable to the claimant becomes Rs.52,18,325l- instead of Rs.19,36,745l- and the rate of interest remains same.

¶67

'(2017 aAC] 2700 (SC))

¶68

¶69

¶70

Thus, the appeal of the Insurance Company i.e.,

¶71

M.A.C.M.A.No.I65 of 2016 is rejected and the appeal of the claimanr

¶72

i.e., M.A.C.M.A.No.544 of 2016 stands allowed.

¶73

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand

¶74

closed.

¶75

SD/-MOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION OFFICER

To,

The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- [ Additionar chief ^^{Judge,^City-CivilCourt, Hyderabad.(with Records, if any)} ?. 9nu 99^to 9ri^{Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, Advocate} tOirUCI 3. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Soma, Advocate [OpUC] 4. Two CD Copies

SP W

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

COMMON JUDGMENT

f- STA rE
//, t, \ -)i' <br>lt: 1
rl
lJl)1.) 2 3 IPH 2t2[
'\ .,:l .:/

¶87

MACMA.No.544 of 2016 AND MACMA.No.165 of 2016

¶88

ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.544 OF 2016 AND

¶89

REJECTING THE MACMA.No.1 65 OF 2016

Gd*

#,-,

tN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶94

WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH^DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶95

PRESENT

¶96

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM^KOSHY AND

¶97

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶98

MOTOR CIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 544 OF 2016} AND

¶99

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL ISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:^{165 OF 2016}

¶100

MOTOR CIDENT CIVIL ISCELI-ANEOUS APPEAL NO:^{544 OF 2016}

¶101

Between:

¶102

K Anji Reddy, S/o K. Narsimha Reddy,^{Occ Employee,R/o.H.No.17-2-558111N2,} Madannapet, Saidabad, Hyderabad,^{Telangana State.}

¶103

...AppellanUPetitioner

¶104

ANO

¶105

Budhiram Rajaram^Yadav, S/o^{Prabhudas Kakkar,Occ Business,Rl/o.No N-2,} Bari Highway Road,^{Bavala Ahmedabad, Guiarat State.}

¶106

The Reliance General lnsurance^{Company Limited, Rep by its Regional} Manager Reliance General lnsurance Building,^{lll Floor Above MallikCars,} Tata Motors, 3d Street, Himayathnagar,^{Hyderabad-500029.}

¶107

,..ResPondents/ResPondents

¶108

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MI SCELI-ANEOUS^{APPEAL NO: 165 OF 2016}

¶109

Between:

¶110

The Reliance General lnsurance Company^{Limited,Rep by its RegionalManager} Office at 4-1-327 lo 337,^{lV floor, Sagar Plaza, Abids Road, Hyderabad50000'l.}

¶111

...APPellanU2'd ResPondent

¶112

AND

¶113

1 K An;i Reddy, S/o K. Narsimha^{Reddy, OccErnployee'Fl/o.H.No 17-2-} 558t1 lN2, Madannapet,^{Saidabad, Hyderabad,Telangana State.}

¶114

...RespondenUPetitioner

¶115

¶116

B Rajaram Yadav, Sio Prabhudas Kakkar, Occ Business, Rl/o.No.N_2, Bari Highway Road, Bavata Ahmedabad, Gujarat State. ... Respondenui.t^petitioner

¶117

. 4pp9al^{filed Under Section173 of Motor Vehicles Act} against the Order and decree in o.P.No.2'r47 of 2o12 dared 14.10.2015 on the Rte" ot ine corrt- ot ltie chairman Motor Accidenr craims Tribunar-cum- il Additionat cnier Juogi, bfuy clvil Court, Hyderabad.

¶118

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the materia'l papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri JAGATHPAL REDby KAS| BEqP.Y,Advocate^{for the Appeilantin MACMA.No.S44of 2016 and Respondent} in MACMA.No.165 of 2016 and of Sri HARTNATH REDDY, Advocaie for the Respondents in MACMA.No.S44 of 2016 and Appelants in MACMA.No.165 of 2016.

¶119

This Court doth order and Decree as follows

¶120

That the Motor Accident civir Miscelaneous Appear No.165 of 2016 be and hereby is rejected.

¶121

That the Motor Accident civir Miscefianeous Appear No.544 of 2016 be and hereby is allowed;

¶122

That the total Compensation payable to the claimant be and hereby is enhanced from Rs.19,36,745l- to Rs.52,18,325t- and the rate of interest remains same;

¶123

4 Il"l the rest of the compensation awarded by the Tribunar incruding the rate of interest awarded be and hereby remain intaci.

¶124

SO/- MOHD SANAULLAH ANSARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶125

//TRUE COPY//

¶126

SECTION OFFICER

¶127

To,l The chairman Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum- I Additionar chief ^^{jrdg9,_qy Civit Court, Hyderabad (with Records,if any)} 2. Two CD Copies SP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0611212023

COMMON DECREE

MACMA.No.544 ot²⁰¹⁶ AND MACMA.No.165 of²⁰¹⁶

¶134

ALLOWING THE MACMA.No.S44^{OF 2016} AND REJECTING THE^{MACMA.No.165 OF 2016}

¶135

codG #"

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. K.Anji Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd., v. K.Anji Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Naazia Khan

Sub K Impact Solutions Limited Vs Sub K Impact Solutions Limited

Telangana Girijan Cop-operative Corporation Limited Vs The State of Telangana

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, Vs Mohamed Azam

K a Reddy, Hyderabad Vs B Rajaram Yadav, Gujarat and 1 Other

Vensai Infra Vs The National Faceless Assessment Center