Allowed

Lakshmi Sudhakar Nekanti v. B. Raju and Another

Telangana HC7 Dec 2023MACMA/2721/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed an appeal in a motor accident claim, increasing compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The court added expenses for physiotherapy, loss of income for 14 months, and loss of future earning capacity based on 30% disability rate.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 27,53,076/- covering physiotherapy, loss of income for 14 months, and future loss of earnings; interest at 7.5% p.a. awarded.

Lakshmi Sudhakar Nekanti Vs B. Raju and Another — Insurance | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECET\4BER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N,TUKARAMJI

¶6

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2721 OF 2011

¶7

Appeal filed under section 173 of tv1.V.Act., aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.04.2011 made in O.P.No.1406 of 2006, on the file of the lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Lakshmi Sudhakar Nekanti, S/o. Surya Narayana Software Engineer Rl/o. Flat No. 202, Gayatri Sunny Enclave, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . B. Raju, S/o. Buchaiah Owner of Lorry Tipper No. AP-16-U-2016 R/o. 9-4131 I 1Ol7 5, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶13

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Branch Manager Branch Office, 5-3312A, 1st Floor, Kukatpally X Roads, Hyderabad, R.R.District.

¶14

...RESPON DENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant: SRl. ENDLURI ISRAEL

¶16

Counsel for the Respondent no.2: SRI KOTA SUBBA RAO

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent no.1: None Appeared

¶18

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶19

HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY AND HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

¶20

M.A.C.M.A. No.2721 OF 2011

¶21

DGMENT: (per Hon'blc Sri Justice N. Tukaramii)

¶22

'W'e have heard Mr. EnduLi Israel, Iearned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I{ota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer and perused the record

¶23

This appeal is directed against the decree and order dated 13.04.2011 h O.P.No.1406 of 2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy Disuict.

¶24

The appellant is rhe claim pedrioner. His case in brief is that on 31.05.2006 rvhile he was proceeding on motorcycle a tipper lorry bearing registration No.Ap16U 201,6, driven by its driver came in rash and negligent manne.r dashed his motorcycle from behind. As a result he sustamed \ .^{injuriesand undergoneffeatment as inpatient} in Apollo^</sup>

¶25

2 PSK,]&NTR,] MACtrlA_2721_2011

¶26

¶27

Hospital, Jubiti FIills, Hyderabad from 31.05.2006 to 15.06.2006. !flhereafter, filed claim petition for

¶28

compensation under the heads of medical expenditure and occupa[ional disabiliry due to the injudes in the accident.

¶29

In inquiry, the petitioner got examined himself as P!fl-1 and marked Exs:A-l to A-15. Further examined the treating doctors/PWs.2 to 6 and the doctor,/PW-8 who issued disabiliry certificate. To prove rhe occupation and loss of earnings, cxamined P)7-7 and marked Exs:X-l to X-11. On behalf of the respondents the insuters representaLive/R$fl-1 and doctors/RWs.2 and 3 were

¶30

examined and marked Exs:B-1 to

¶31

B-6.

¶32

The tribunal on assessing the materials and merits

¶33

gtanted Rs.4,83,452/- as compensation in the impugned

¶34

award.

¶35

PSK,]&NTR,] MACMA_2721 20tt

¶36

¶37

In appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶38

contend that the petitioner had suffered fracture injuries on pelvis, right hip, left hip, spinal cord and rupture of unnary bladder and undergone prolonged treaffnenr and also physiotherapy. Though rhe evidence of physiotherapisr/ P!fl-6 has been accepted by the tribunal and basing on the documents,/Exs:X-1 to X-9 presented by hrm granted Rs.15,300/-, excluded the physiotherapy brlls/Ex.A_10 for Rs.1,14,400/-, without jusrification. Furrher, regardless of the evidence of Human Resource Manager/p\X/_7 and the documents/Exs:A-13 to A_15 the loss of pay dudng treatment has been discounted. T.he doctor of the medical board/P!7-S has stated about the physical disabiiiry at 30o,/o, but the tribunal by obserwing that the employment is being continued, notwithstanding rhe effect of disability on the , prospecrs of the employmenr grantecl Rs.2 lakhs in lump

¶39

\ \

¶40

¶41

PSK,J&NTR,] MACMA 2721 2011

¶42

sum without any ratioflale. Thus prayed for reassessment and for gtanting just compensation.

¶43

7 Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/insurer has pleaded that the rribunal had becomingly considered the materials placed by the petitioner and reasonably awarded amounts to the extent proved by the petirioner. Although physical disabiliry has been pleaded, as rhere was cont-inuance of employment and no IOSS of income, disallowing the disability affecting occupation is fair. Therefore, no Ieason ls made out for interference.

¶44

We have considered the rival contentrons and perused the materials on record.

¶45

The point falls for our consideration is:

¶46

¶47

Whether the compensation amount awarded to the petitioner is just and proper in thc facts and circums tances of the case?

¶48

PSK,]&NTR,J |4ACMA 2721 2011

¶49

¶50

'..Yi

¶51

The accident, in juries, trcatment undergone by the petitioner, his age, occupation and monthly income pleaded by the petitioner are not in dispute. The doctors stated about the fracture injuries to the pelvis, Ieft and right hip, spinal cord and penetrating infury in the perineum, ruprure of urinary bladder and the treatment undergone.

¶52

11 The evidence of PN7-1, RWs.2 and 3 arc establishing that the entire hospital expenditure of the petitioner was reimbursed by the employer. The peritioner has asserred that he has undergone physiotherapy trearrrrent and placed Ex.A-1O/bills. The Physiotherapist/PW-6 in his evidence had confrmed the bills/Ex.A-10 and also produced Exs:X-1 to X-9. The tribunal only on rhe materials placed by PS7-6 awarded Rs.15,300/-. By the petitioner's assertion in witness box about the expendi[ure under Ex.A-10 bi]ls and the rarification by the PW-6 and in absence of any rebuttal ,^{evidenceby the respondents, we see no reason to disbelieve}

¶53

¶54

PSK,]&NTR,J MACI4A 2721 2011

¶55

¶56

¶57

the expenditure presented in Ex.A 10.^'fherefore, 1n addition to Rs.15,300/-, the petiuoner is up for

¶58

Rs. 1,1 4,400/- as to physiotherapy expenditure

¶59

L2. The peutioner as PrX/-1 deposed thar due to the injuries he could nor arrend his avocation for 14 months. This statement is supported by PW-7 and the loss of pay certificates/Exs:A-14 and A-15. Nonetheless the doctors advised bed rest for three months. By this fact alone concluding that the petitioner has attcnded avocation or was in position to attend would not be reasonabie. A combined reading of the injuries suffered, treatment and the evidence of PWs.1 and 7, the inabilrq, of the petitioner in attending employment for a period of 14 months is found passable. For this reason granting loss of income for 14 months at Rs.2,71.,376/- instead of Rs.58,152/- is found proper

¶60

The physical disability of the peritioner rated by the doctor/PW-S was at 3Oo/o. As pcr the treatrng doctor thc

¶61

¶62

,f^--

¶63

PSK,I&NIR,I MACMA 2721_2011

¶64

¶65

disability is permanent in nature. It is^{true that for} assessment of compensation the^rate of^{physicaldisability in} loss of income earning capairq should be^{the criteria.It was} stated by the PW-7 that the petitioner is continuedⁱⁿ employment. Nonetheless, in the peculiar^{facts and} circumstances of the case especially the^iniuries to^{the spinal} cord, pelvis, left and right hip, we are of the considered opinion that the injuries suffered by the petltioner will definitely affect his occupational capabilities and would^have

¶66

cumulative effect on his occupational prospects, as such the loss of earning capacity can be rated equally with the physical disabilitv at 30o/o

¶67

The petitioner's income at Rs.25,000/- per month is

¶68

substantiated by the PW-7 and the pay certt{tcatefBx.A-14.⁽ I As per the dictum, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pappu Deo

¶69

Yadau u. V. Naresb Kumar and otherst held that the future

¶70

'^{2020 scc c)nline SC 752}

¶71

rlr.

¶72

PSK,]&NIR, ] MACMA 2721 201t

¶73

¶74

prospects of income as enunciate d in lrla/iona/ Insarance

¶75

Compary u. Pranal Sethi2 is equally applicablc in cases of assessment of 'loss of future earnings due to permanent disability'. The petitioner is aged below 40 ycars and the tegular employment, 40o/o of the income has ro be added as future prospects. Accordingly, the monthly income of the peutioner would be Rs.35,000/- and annual income ar Rs.4,20,000/- and loss of future income at 300/o would be of Rs.1,26,000/-. If this amount is multiplied with the relevanr multipliet to the age of petitroner i.e., 17, as per Sarla Verma and others us. Delhi Tranrport Corporation and anotbel and after deducting the tax, it wouid come to Rs.21 ,42,000/-. The petitioner is enrided to this amount towards 'loss of fururc earnings due to disabiliry'. {

¶76

'z1zorz1^{ro scc eoo} ' 2009 ACJ 1298

¶77

PSK,J&NTR,J MAC}4A 2721²⁰¹¹

¶78

¶79

15 Additionally, we^{afFrm the tribunal awarded amounts} under the^{heads of pain and sufferings and attendant'exlra} nourishment.

¶80

16 In ali, the petitioner^{is eligrble for compensaflofl as}

¶81

undef:

¶82

DESCRIPTION	AMOUNT Rs.
Lossoffuture^{earningsdueto}	21.,42,000.00
disabilr
Lossofe for14months	2,71,316.00
Ph siothera char S	1,,29,700.00
Towards ainandsufferin	1,95,000.00
Attendantandextra^nourishment	15,000.00
TOTAI	27,53,076.00

¶83

Accordingly,^{the appealis allowed, in the following}

¶84

terms, v12.,

¶85

(r) the respondent^{Nos.1 artd 2 arc} iointly^{and sev€rally} lj.able to pay the^{said amount with interest} @^1'5o/oper annum from the^{date of petition tjll date of realization with}

¶86

COSTS;

¶87

¶88

PSK,]&NTR,.] MACMA 2727 20t1

¶89

(ii) the respondenrs are directed to deposit the awarded

¶90

amouflt within slx weeks from the date of reccipt of a copy of this judgment; and

¶91

00^onsuch deposit, the peridoner is permttted ro

¶92

withdraw the entire amounr.

¶93

As a sequel, miscellaneous peritions pending if any,

¶94

stands closed.

¶95

Sd/. MOHD.^IS L ASSISTANT^REGI RAR

//TRUE COPY//

SECTION FFICER

To,

l.TheChairman'MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-llAdditionalDistrict Judge at^{L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District}

¶100

z. on""cc to^{sRl. ENDLURIlsRAEL, Advocate toPUCl-}

¶101

Onu CC^{to SRl. KOTASUBBA RAO,Advocate [OPUC]}

¶102

Two CD^CoPies

pr \ >-

HIGH COURT

PSK,J

NTR,J

DATED: 0711212023

JUDGMENT MACMA.No.2721 ot 2011

¶110

STATE
.
qlo I t 'Ji"n , ',i ';ili'''
o
.r'
t D StrI'. ,;.7

ALLOWING THE MACMA

*&'
2)'

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶115

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTYTHREE

¶116

PRESENT

¶117

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶118

MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO:2721 OF 2011

¶119

Between:

¶120

Lakshmi Sudhakar Nekanti, S/o. Surya Narayana Software Engineer R/o. Flat No.202, Gayatri Sunny Enclave, Nizampet Road, Kukatpally, Balanagar lvlandal, Ranga Reddy Diskict.

¶121

...APPELLANT/PETITION ER

¶122

AND

¶123

'l . B. Raju, S/o. Buchaiah Owner of Lorry Tipper No. AP-16-U-2016 R/o. 9-4131 I 1Ol7 5, Toli Chowki, Hyderabad.

¶124

The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Rep., by its Branch Manager Branch Office, 5-3312A, 1sl Floor, Kukatpally X Roads, Hyderabad, R.R.District.

¶125

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶126

Appeal filed under section 173 of Ii/.V.Act., aggrieved by the order and decree dated 13.04.2011 made in O.P.No.1406 of 2006, on the file of the l\ilotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-ll Additional District Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District.

¶127

ORDER: This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the MVOP and upon hearing the arguments of representing SRl. ENDLURI ISRAEL, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI KOTA SUBBARAO, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and None Appeared for the Respondent No.1

¶128

This Court doth order and Decree as follow

¶129

'1. That the Motor Accident Civil lvliscellaneous appeal be and hereby is allowed;

¶130

That the Respondent Nos.'1 and 2 be and hereby are Jointly and^{severally liable} to pay the said amount with interest @ 7 .5%^per annum from the date of^petition till date of realization with costs;

¶131

That the respondents be and hereby are directed to^{deposit the awarded amount} within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgmenu^and

¶132