Partly allowed

The National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Baba Sharaduddin , Sharfuddin and Another

Telangana HC24 Jan 2024MACMA/3797/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a stay petition and allowed the claimant's cross-objection against a lower Tribunal. The Court held the insurance company liable due to lack of proof of service of cancellation notice. It enhanced compensation to Rs. 9,08,765/- considering future prospects and additional expenses.

What did the court decide?

Appeal by insurer dismissed; cross-objection by claimant allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,08,765/-.

The National Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Baba… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH^{DAYOF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY^FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA^RANI MOTOR ACCIDENT c tvt L MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No:^{3797 OF 2011} AND

¶5

XOBJR No.15 of 2019

¶6

Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V.Act against^{the decreeand Judgement} made in O.P.No.1098 of 2007 dated^15.02.2010 on the^{file of the Court of the Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal^--cum- Chief^{Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.}

¶7

Between:

¶8

The National lnsurance Company Ltd.,, Rep.^{by its Regional Manager,Moghuls} Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad.

¶9

...AppellanURespondent No'2

¶10

AND

¶11

Baba Sharaduddin ,alias Sharfuddin,^{S/o. Mohd.Yousuf, Muslim, aged 29 years,} Occ: Driver H.No.12-15-1044^{Manikeshwar NagarNearArts College, Osmnaia} University Hyderabad

¶12

Y.Sunil Kumar, S/o. Gangadhar^{Rao, Hindu, aged Major, Business} R/o. Flat No.C-4, Annapurna Apts.,^{VUayawada,Krishna District}

¶13

.Respondents

¶14

l.A. NO; 2 OF 201 O(MACMAMP. NO:⁴²⁹⁸ 0F²⁰¹⁰⁾

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^{stated in the} affidavit filed in suppo( of the^petition, the^High Court^{maybe pleasedgrant stayof all} further proceedings including stay of execution of order and^{decree dated 15-2-20'10} passed in OP.No. 1098 of 2007 by the MACT cum Chief Judge, CCC,^Hyderabad.

¶16

Counsel for the Appellant : SRI^{KONDADIAJAY KUMAR}

¶17

Counsel for the Respondent No.1:^SRI JAGATHPAL^{REDDYKASIREDDY}

¶18

The Court made the following:^{COMMON JUDGEMENT}

¶19

THII HONOTJRAI}I-E DR..IUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

¶20

M4,e-M.A.No.3797 of 201I & Cross Obiection No.l5 of 2019

¶21

COMMON JUDGMENI-:

¶22

M.A.C.M.A.No.3797 of 20ll is filed by the insurance company aggrieved by the award and decree passed in O.P.No. 1098 of 2007 dated 15.02.20 I0 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT") - cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and X-Objection No.l5 of 2019 is filed by the injr.rred claimarrt, seeking enhancement of' colnpensatlon.

¶23

The parties are hereinafter referred as claimant and respondent No.2 as arrayed belorc the MAC'T.

¶24

'lhe claimant liled a clairn petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by hirl in a motor vehicle accider.rt.

¶25

As per the claim petition, the claimant was aged about 26 years, he was working as an ernployee in Osmania University, M.Ed. College and was getting a salary of Rs.4,800/- per month by the date of the accident. On02.02.2007 at about 02:45 PM, white the claimant was proceeding on his Bajaj putsar vehicle bearing No.AP-10-AV-8320 tiom Hyder-abaci towards I-lanunrakonda ancl when

¶26

¶27

.^: i , matma-3?9.i_t(iit&riiiss;Oi"lr,""'l,t_.1:lj reached Kazipet Junction at thc same time a trolley rorr1,. beari.g Na..z\p- l rjTv-4341 dr:iven by irs.driver:rvirh high speed in a rash and negligent mannel. hit the vehicle o.i the petitioner. due to rvhich he suslained. fractures to both legs, head injury, lacerations and abrasions to his hands. 'luimediaceli, he .*,as shifled to Rohini Hospital, Hanumakonda and on the ad'ice.crf the hospiml aurhorities, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital. The doctors therein f<iunci tirat his legs vrerc fractured due, to the crustr injury to left foot anci he was operated. But ttie doctors stated that three more operations were required to be performetl. He further stated that due to the accident. he sustained petrranent disability, hi:; iitb became miserable and his movements were totally restricted. As such, claimed compensation liom respon,Jents I and 2, the owne r and insurer of the trollcv lony bearing No.AP- I 6-TV-4347.

¶28

) The respondent No. I remained ex-parte.

¶29

The respondent No.2 filed counter., As per the counter filed by the respondent No.2, the cheque issued by respondent No. I towards premium for an amount of Rs.25,525l- on 26.07.2006 drawn on IWs.ICICI Bapk. vijayawada, when presented for collection was dishonored for the reason^{..ir:srrtficienl} funds" vide memo dated 29.07.2006. [t was specifically rnentio.ed in the premium receipt that if payment was made through cheque, the policy u,ould be valid subject to realization of the cheque and in case of dishonor, the policy

¶30

¶31

Dr.GRR, J macma_J797-20I I & cross objcction -15-2019

¶32

would automatically stand cancelled. A notice was issued by the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company to respondent No.1 on 03.08.2006 informing^the dishonor of the.cheque and demanding retum of policy certificate. But inspite of receiving the notice'by respondent No.1, the respondent No. I did not remit^the premium amount nor surendered the policy certificate, as such, the policy issued :in favor of respondent No. I was cancelled. The respondent No.2 contended that they were not liable to pay compensation as policy was not subsisting as on the date ofaccident.

¶33

7 . During the course of enquiry, the appellant claimant examined himself as PW.l and examined the Assistant Professor, Department of Plastic Surgery, NIMS as PW.2 and the Financial Controller of NIMS as PW.3 and the doctor who issued the disabitity cerlificate as PW.4. Exs.Al to Al5 were marked on behalf of the appellant - clain.rant. Tl.re Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company at Secunderabad was examined as RW. 1 and Exs.B 1 to 88 were marked on behalf of the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.

¶34

I On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the leamed Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lony bearing No.AP- 16-TV-4347 and the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident.

¶35

¶36

I)r.GRR, J macma-379i 201I & cross ob.iection -l5J019 9. wirh regard to the qrrantulr of compensation, though the ciaimant clairned corrperrsation of Rs.3,00.000/-, ttre MACT arvarded Rs.-1,73,525/-, which it considered as just and reasonable

¶37

l0; ln the absence of any'evidence adduced by the ctaimant in proof of his income, the leamed chiel Judge had considered the income of the clainrant notionally as Rs.3.000/- per. month and applietl multiplier^..1g,, as per the Second Schedule of the Motor vehicles Act and ccnsidering the evidence of PW.4, the Tribunal had taken disability as 509/o and assessecl the loss of eamings of the c:lairnanr due to the disabilitv sustained by him as Rs.3,24,000/-. An amou,t of Rs.44,.525l- was awarded towards medical bills as per Ex.Al2 and awarded an arrount ol Rs.5,000/- toward "pain and suffering',. Thus, in total awarded an amount of Rs.3.73.525l-.

¶38

With regard to the liability, as there is no proof of service of notice on respondent No. I with regard to the cancellation ol the policy due to dishonor of cheque and that a letter was addressed to Regional rransport officer ( lor sl.rort "RTO"), Vijayawada with regard to cancellation of the insurance policy, the Tribunal hetd that Exs.86 and 87 could not be relied upon and respondent No.2 was liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner. As such, the Tribunal awarded the above amount of Rs.3,73,-525l- with interest @ 9 % per annum.

¶39

¶40

Dr.GRR, J ' m ^cma^{_3797 _20ll & crossobjection15_2019} 12.^,. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company preferred M.A.C.M.A.No3797 of 201I contending that the Tribunal failed to observe that as per E,xs.B I and 82, the cheque issued by the respondent No.l towards premium was dishonored and as there was no premium paid by him, the Company rightly cancelled the policy and issued notice dated 03.08.2006 under Exs.B6 and 87 both to respondent No. I and the RTO. The respondent No.1 had not denied the fact of issuing notice to l.rim. He remained ex-parte. In such event, it could be presumed that respondent No.l was aware of the fact of dishonor of cheque as well as cancellation of policy by the Company. The Hon'ble Apex Court also stated in the judgrrent relied by the Tribunal in Deddappa and Others v, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limitedr that, there was no liability on the parr of the Insurance Company, if once the notice was issued to the respondent No.l cancelling the policy. The Tribunal committed an error in taking the income of the petitioner as Rs.3.000/- per month in the absence of any proof and erred in awarding compensal.ion in excess of the claim by the petitioner and prayed to allow the appeal.

¶41

The leamed counsel for the claimant who preflerred X-objection No. l5 of 2019 on the other hand contended that I.A.No. I of 2019 filed by him for enhancement of compensation from Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/_ was

¶42

'(2008)² scc^s9s

¶43

¶44

. DI.GRR, J m:icnra_J797 Z{ I & cross objeclion _lS_20i9 aliowed and necessaly court t-ee was arso paid. !y rhe crainant. The rribunal failed to consider that the claimani was working as a driver - curn -- cte,rk irr osmania universit, on temporary basis arrd 'was eamiag Rs.4;s00/- Jrer n:onth and as. the dcctor categoricalll, deposed that the claimant was, unfii t; dri.ve the vehicle, the loss of earnirrgs ought to have been consider.ed a1 1009,o, but not 50%. Future prospects u,ere arso not c:onsideretl by the Tribrr,ar. The Tribunal failed to arvard 'any amount towards loss or amenities, loss of eanrings during the period of treatment, attendant char-ees, tra[spoftation. e>rtra nourisiuirent. The anrount awarded under ti.re heaci "pain and suffering" ,,vas alst-r meaeger and

¶45

Lleard Sri Jaga-thpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counser for the appeilarit -^clairnantand S'i K..Aja.v Kunrar. leamed counscl rbr the respondent No.2 Insurance Company.

¶46

Now, the points for consideration in this appeal and X-objection arr.::

¶47

i. whether the Tribunar committed any e.'or in fixing the liability on the Insurance Company when the cheque issued b;- the o*,ner of the verricre towards premium was dishonored?

¶48

ii. whether the compensation awarded by the Triburral is in accordance u,ith tiie settled principles ol law?

¶49

i ii. To what result?

¶50

POINTNo.I:

¶51

¶52

Dr.GRR, J macma 3797 2011 & cross^objection -15-2019

¶53

whether the Tribunal committed any illegality^{in fixing the liability on the} Insurance Company when the cheque issued by^{the owner of the vehicle} towards premium was dishonored?

¶54

The respondent No.2 Insurance Company got examined^the Administrative Officer of his Company at Secunderabad^{as RW. 1. RW. 1 filed} his evidence affidavit stating that the cheque^{bearing No.291875dated} 26.07.2006 issued by the owner of the vehicle for an^{amount of Rs.25,525l-} drawn on M/s.ICICI Bank, Vijayawada^{Branch was retumed for "insufficient} funds". A premium receipt was issued to the respondent^{No. 1 at the time of} taking the policy, in which it was clearly stated that^{the receiptwould be valid} subject to realization of cheques. Hence, the policy automatically^stands cancelled. Immediately, after the policy was cancelled, the^{Companyissueda} tetter dated 03.08.2006 to respondent No.1 stating that the policy was cancelled due to dishonor of cheque. Subsequent to the cancellation of^{policy,another} letter dated 03.08.2006 was also issued to the RTO, Vijayauada intimating^that the cheque issued was cancelled to the vehicle registration No.AP-16-TV-4347. As such, at the time of the accident, the policy was not in force and^the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation

¶55

The cheque bearing No.291875 dated 26.01 .2006 was marked as Ex.B1, bank return memo dated 29.07.2006 stating the reason lor return of cheque due

¶56

to "insufficient funds" was marked as Ex.B2. the notice of Indian Overseas

¶57

¶58

Dr.GRlt. J macma 3?97 l{)l^{I & crossobjection} -15-2019

¶59

Bank informing^{aboutthe return of chequedated 3i.07.2006rvas markedas} Ex.B3, the^{premiunl receipt was marked as Ex"B4,the insuri'r'nce policyissued} by^,;he vijayawada^{Branchotficewas marked as Ex.B5,the otfice copyof the} letter datecl 03.08.2006^{informing the insurerabout the cancellationof the} policywasmarkedasEx.B6andtheletterdated03.08.2006infomringthe RTo,Vijayawadaaboutthecancellationofthepolic5.wasmarkedasEx.BT.

¶60

lS.Inhiscross-examination,RW.ladmittedthatnoacknowledgme:twas filecl in^proof of^{receipt of notices by respondentNo'l and RTO' Vijal''au'ada} vide Exs.B6 and^87.

¶61

lg.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellant'_claimantrelieduponthejudgment of the Hon'ble^{ApexCoud in Deddappa and Others v' Branch Manager'} NationallnsuranceCompanyt.,imited(citedsupra).whereinonsimilarfacts, when the cheque^{issued by the owner of the vehiclewas dishonored witl.r the} remarks^{..funds insufficient"and the insurer cancelledthe policy of insurance} arulthesaidinformationwascommunicatedtotheownerofthevehicleandan intimationwasalsogiventotheconcemedRToandtheaccidentoccurredwas much after^{communication of the cancellationol the policy, the Hon'bleApex} Court held^that:

¶62

"l4.Section^{64-VB of thc 1938 Act provides} that no risk is^{to be assumed unlessprcmium} is received in^{advancein the follorving tcrms:-}

¶63

¶64

Dr.GRIl, J

¶65

macma_J797_201I & cross objection 15 2019

¶66

"Section 64-VB - No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance -

¶67

(l) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect ol any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed. is made in advance in the prescribed manner.

¶68

(2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer.

¶69

Explanation.- Where the premium is tendered b1 postal money order or cheque scnt by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted. as the case may be.

¶70

(3) Any rcf und of premium which may become due to an insured on account of the cancellation ol a policy or alteration in its terms and conditions or otherwise shall be paid by the insurer directly to the insured by a crossed or order cheque or by postal money order and a proper receipt shall be obtained by the insurer from the insured, and such refund shall in no case be credited to the account ol the agent.

¶71

(4) Where an insurance agent collects a premium on a policy of insurance on behall ol an insurer. he shall deposit with, or dispatch by post to, the insurer, the premium so collected in lull without deduction ol his commission within twenty-lour hours ol the collection excludins bank and postal holidays.

¶72

The said provision, therefore, in no unmistakable term provides for issuance of a valid policy only on receipt of payment of the premium.

¶73

We are rrot oblivious of the distinction between the statutory tiability of the Insurance

¶74

¶75

Dr.GRR, J macrna_3797-201.1 & cross objection 15 2019

¶76

Cornpany vis-a-vis a third partv in the context of:Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and its liabilities in other casc.s. Bur the samc liabilities alising under a contract of insurance would have to be met il the contracl is r.alid. If the corrtract ol^, insurance has bccn czmcolled and all concerned have been intimatcd thereabout. u,e are ol thc opinion. the insurairce company would nol bc liahlc to srlisl). lhe claim.

¶77

A beneficial legislation as is ,,ve[l knolvn shorild not be coitstruecl in such a manner so as to bring witl-rin its ambit a benefit which rvas not corrtemplated b1, the iegislature to be given to the party. In Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation. Trichur v. Ramanuja Match Industries [,{lR I S85 SC 2781, this Coun hcld :

¶78

"We do not doubt that benel-rcial legiilatior.is should havc liberat corstruction with a view to implementing the legislative intent but where such beneficial .legislarion has a schcme ol its own there is rto u,'arrant lor the Coufi to travel beyond the scheme and extend the scope of the statute on the pretext of extending the statutory/ benefit to those who are not covered by rhe scheme."

¶79

We, therefore, agree with the arpinion of the High Court.

¶80

However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case ol this nature, we should, in exercise of our extra-ordinary .iurisdiction under A(icle !42 ol the Constitution ol India, direct the Respondent No.1 to pa1'the amount of claim to the appel[ants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle viz.. Respondent No.2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was prefened by him. We direct accordingly."

¶81

The only difference in the facts cited before the judgment of the Hon'ble

¶82

Apex Court and the present case is that the said inlormation with regard to the

¶83

¶84

Dr.GRR, J macma_3797_2011 & cross objection _15_2019

¶85

dishonor of cheque was communicated by the Insurance Company to the insured and a postal acknowledgment was also filed showing the intimation with regard to the service of the copy of the letter on the insured and also to the RTO.

¶86

Taking the said aspect into consideration, the Tribunal held that "in the present case as observed above, the respondent No.2 failed to establish about the service of Ex.B6 on the respondent No.1 and Ex.B7 on the RTO. Therefore, it could not be said that respondent No.2 has intimated to the respondent No.1 with regard to the cancellation olthe policy or about the dishonor olthe cheque issued by him towards premium for the policy. In the absence of the same, the respondent No.2 having issued the policy and not intimated about the cancellation ol the same, they are liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner.''

¶87

The Hon'ble Apex Court in The United Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma & Others2 discussed with regard to the insurer's liability against the third parfy risk while considering Sections 149,146 and, 147 and held that:

¶88

"When cheque issued for payment of premium was dishonorcd and subsequent to the accident, insurer cancelled the policy of insurance, in such circumstances, statutori Iiability of insurer to indemnily their parties which policy covered subsists and insurer has to satisfy award of cornpensation unless policy of insurance was cancelled by insurer and intimation of such

¶89

'(2012)^{5 SCC 234}

¶90

!.2

¶91

Dr.CItR,.l macrna 3797_?Q11 & cross objcction 15 20i9 canceilation had reached the insured betbre the a3cident."

¶92

In National Insurance Company Limited r,. Balkar Ram and Ofhersr. the Hon'ble Apex L'ourt held that:

¶93

''liiilure on. the pan ol lnsurance Corrpanl to give irrtinration regarding the dishonor ol cheque and calcellation ol policy to the policl. holder' before the date of the accider,r the defence that the policl, ol Insurance was not valid since rhe chcque had been dish(rnored prior to the accitlent, v,,ould not cxrueritte Insurance Companl'.''

¶94

Tirus, as rightly' observed b1, rire Tribunai, only when the Insurance Companl, had filed the acknowledgmetlts also in prool ol receipt of notice by the insured intirnatirrg about the cancellation ol policy, then only, the Insurance Company could be exonerated from its tiability. Otherw'ise" the lnsurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimant, rvho is a third party and cannot avoid its liabiiity towards the risk olthe rhird pafties.

¶95

As such, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company vide M.A.C.M.A.No.379l of 2C1l is liable to be disr:nissed.

¶96

'^{2013 SCC Online SC 592}

¶97

¶98

Dr.GRR, J mtcmz 3797 _2011 & cross objection _15_2019

¶99

POINTNo.2:

¶100

Whether the compensation arvarded by the Tribunal is in accordance with the settled principles of larv?

¶101

The claimant though filed the claim petition stating that he was working as an employee in Osmania University and was earning Rs.4,800/- per month by the date of the accident on 02.02.2007, had not filed any document in proof of his employment showing the nature of his employment or the pay slips to prove the income earned by him. However. as per the judgment ol the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sri Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance

¶102

Insurance Company Limitedo, even a laborer is considered as eaming Rs.l50/per day for the accident occurred during the year 2004, considering the date of the accident in the year 2007, the eamings of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.4,800/- per month as clairned by him.

¶103

Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Otherss, wherein it was

¶104

held that future prospects also to be considered for the persons who were.selfemployed or on a fixed salary and the age of the petitioner is stated to be 26 years, which was not disputed, an addition of 40Yo of his income can be

¶105

considered towards "future prospects". As such an amount of Rs. 1,920l- (40%

¶106

'20t1 AcJ²⁴²⁶

¶107

s2ot7 (6) ALD r70 (sc)

¶108

¶109

Dr.GRR, J macnra_3797_201 I & cross objection l< 2019

¶110

of Rs.4,800/ ) is taken towards future prospects and the .income of the injured claimant can be taken as Rs.4.800/- + Rs. 1,920/- : Rs.6,720l-.

¶111

The Tribunal had taken the multiprlier as per the Second Scheduie of the Motor Vehicles Act, i988, but the sarne ought to have been taken as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex ciourt in Smt.Sarla vernra & others v. Delhi Transport corporation & Another6. considering tl.rc age of the claimant as 26 years, multiplier " 1 7" is applicable as per the above case.

¶112

29.^'Ihe evidence of PWs.2 and 4 would disclose that the claimant had sustained crush injury to his left foot wl.rich res',rlted in loss of skin and iendons on the Ieft foot. He was operated on 03.02.2007 and the doctors did debridement, rnicro surgical tissue transfer, repair of lendons and skin grafting The claimant was &q* in the hospital for post operative care and was discharged on 13.()2.2007 with arr advice ro come back lor follow.up treatment.^'lhe evidence of PW.2 would disclose that he had exarnined the patient in the presence of both the counsel and found that there was no much movement at the ankle as the transfer tissue was bulky and fat. He would advise him for plastic surgery to improve the appearance of the foot and the surgery would approximately cost him Rs.20,000/- and that he would refer hirn to ofthopedic surgeon for opinion as to whether it was surgically possibte to improve the ankle movement and function.

¶113

'(2009) 6^SCC121

¶114

¶115

Dr.GRR, J macma_3797_2011 & cross objection I5 2019 30. PW.4 was Professor of Orlhopedics at Osmania General Hospital. He stated that on 02.06.2008, the claimant approached him and on examining him, found that he had crush injury to left foot with degloving of skin, fractures and sub-location of tarsal and meta tarsal bones which were treated by extemal fixation and skin grafting. Full thickness of skin graft was done from right thigh. Left ankle tarsal and meta tarsal joints were fixed but movement of toes were absent. There was defonnity and disfigurement, loss of sensation. Due to the permanent physical impairment and loss of physical function of left lower limb, the disability was estimated as 5oyo which was partial and permanent in nature. He also stated that in his opinion,, the claimant could not drive motor vehicle. He admitted issuing thc disability certiflcate marked under Ex.A 14.

¶116

3 I ' The leamed counsel lor the claimant relied upon the j udgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Golla Rajanna and others v. Divisional Manager and AnotherT, which was a case under the workmen's compensation Act, 1923. lt was held that:

¶117

"As per Section 4(I)(c)(ii) of the Act, the percentage ol permanent disability needs to be assessed only by a qualified medical practitioncr. There is no case lbr the respondent that the doctor, who issued the disabilitv ccrtilicalc. is nor a qualified mcdical practitioncr, as defined under the Act.

¶118

'⁽²⁰¹ 7) 1 SCC 45

¶119

¶120

l)r.(lRR, J macma J797 20tl^{& crossobjection} -15 2019

¶121

The High Court^{was not justifiedin interfering} with the order^{passedb1' the Comnrissioner'"}

¶122

The^{leamed counsel for the appeilant - claimant relied upon the Division} Bench^{judgrnentof this Court in Charan Singh v' G'Vittal Reddy and} Anothers,^{whichrvas also a case under Workrnen'sCompensationAct' 2023'} wherein it^{was heldthat any qualifieddoctor canassess the loss of disabilityvis-} d-vislclssofeamingcapacityanditisnotnecessarythatheshouldbethedoctor who trcated^{the injured.}

¶123

He^{also relied r'rpon the judgmentof the Single Bench of this Court in} Syed Saleem^{and others v. Abdul Shukur and Anothere,whereinalso it was} heldthatthedisabilitycertificatetotheinjuredneednotbegir,enbythedoctor who treated him.^{It could be givensubsequentlyby any other qualifiedmedical} practitioner after^{the injuries are healed'}

¶124

Thus,^{PW.4 is also a qualified doctor who alsoworkedas a member of} MedicalBoardandgavethereasonsforassessingthedisabilityas50%. Though,hestatedthattheclaimantcouldnotdrivethemotorvehicle'asthe claimant failed^{to prove that he was working as a driver and as such sustained} functionaldisabilitytoanextentofl00%'itisconsideredfittoacceptthe disability as^{50o/o. As such,the loss of eaming capacity due to partialand}

¶125

'2003^{(4) ALD 183(DB)}

¶126

"2007^{(t) At.T 648 (S.B)}

¶127

¶128

Dr.GRR, J macma_3797 _20I I & cross objection _15_2019

¶129

pelrnanent disability sustained by the claimant can be assessed as Rs.6,700 x l2 x 17 x50ok: Rs.6,85,440/-.

¶130

As the evidence of PW.2 rvould disclose that he required another surgery to improve the appearance of the foot and the said surgery would approximately cost him Rs.20,000/-, it is considered fit to award an amount of R.20,000/towards his future medical expenses.

¶131

As the evidence of PW.3, the Financial Controller working in NIMS would disclose that the claimant incurred an amounr of Rs.44,525l-, the Tribunal rightly awarded the said amount which requires no interference. However, as the evidence of PW.2 would disclose that there was restricted movement of ankle as the transfer of tissue was bulky and fat and his physical appearance is also affected and about three surgeries were performed on him for debridement and skin grafting, the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head "pain and suffering" is considered as meager and the same need to be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-.

¶132

As the evidence of PW.4 would disclose that the claimant had sustained loss of sensation and he could not drive any vehicle, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. As no amount is awarded towards attendant charges and some of the family members of the petitioner might have attqrded him by leaving their work, it is considered fit to

¶133

¶134

Dr.GIiR, J macma 3797^{2011& crossobjection} -15-2019

¶135

awardanamountolRs.20,000/.towardsattendantcharges.Asnoamountis awarded towards^{lc'ss of income drrling the pcriodof treatment, the loss of} eamings can be^{consideredfor a periotl of six months and an amountof} Rs.4,800/-x6=Rs.28,800/-isawardedtorvardslossofeamings'Asnoamount is awarded towarcls^{extra nourishmentand transportation,it is considered fit to} award an amount^{ofRs.5.000/-each under both these heads'}

¶136

t6 As such. the^{compensation awardedto the petitioner under variousheads} is as lbllows:

¶137

S,NO	Ee ads	flom1)cnsation^Awarded
	ILo ss partia I disabilit olearningsdue^to andPermanent	Rs.6,35.4'l0/-
2	Lossofearnings^fora periodofsix^{tnonthsduring} theperiodoftrgtment	Rs.28^800/- l
	--, PainandSutftri r1g	Rs.50.000r-
4	l.ossof^{ameniticsinlile}	Rs.50.000/-
5	MedicalEx ellses	Rs.44,525r-
6	FurureMedical^Ex CNSES	Rs.20.000t-
7	Attendant^{Char cs}	Rs.20,000/-
8	11atron Transpo	Rs.5,0001
9	Extra nourishment	Rs.5.000f
Total:		I1s.9,08,765/-

¶138

As^{such, it is considered fit to enhance the compensation awarded by the} Tribunal from^{Rs.3,73,5251-to Rs'9'08'7651 rvhich is consideredas just and} reasonable

¶139

¶140

Dr.GRR, J macma_3797 _201I & cross objection l5_2019

¶141

POINTNo.3:

¶142

To What resu lt?

¶143

In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.379l of 201I f rled by rhe respondenr No.2 - Insurance company is dismissed and the cross-objection No. l5 of 2019 hled by the injured claimant is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,73,525l- awarded by the^'l'ribunal to Rs.9,08,7651- with inreresr @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance company is directed to deposit the above amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, alter deducting the amount deposited if any earlier. on such deposit, the appellant - injured craimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.

¶144

No order as to costs.

¶145

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal and cross_

¶146

objection ifany shall stand closed.

¶147

Sd/- T.JAYASREE ASSISTANT BEITISTRAR //TRUECOPY// i,NY__ SECTION OFFICER

¶148

To, 1. The Motor^{Accident claimsTribunal} -cum-^{chiefJudge, city civil court'} Hyderabad.

¶149

One CC to SRl.^{KONDADI AJAY KUMAR Advocate [OPUC]}

¶150

One CC to SRl.^{JAGATHPAL REDDY KASI REDDY Advocate [OPUC]}

¶151

Two CD^Copies

eh a\L

HIGH COURT

DATED i2410112024

COMMON JUDE MENT

MACMA.No.3797 of 2011 AND

¶157

I Ci F. 1HE St.4 rd.
J 1e |lctMt
'."i.'',.j-i

¶158

XOBJR No.15 of 2019

¶159

DISMISSING THE MACMA

¶160

XOBJRNo.I5 of 2019 IS ALLOWED

¶161

WITHOUT COSTS

¶162

fA',"

¶163

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶164

WEDNESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY^{OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶165

PRESENT

¶166

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA^RANI MOTOR ACCIDEN T CIVIL MISCEL^{LANEOUSAPPEAL No:3797 OF 2011} AND

¶167

XOBJR No.15 of 2019

¶168

Appeal filed under Section 173 of^{M.V.Act against the decree and Judgement} made in o.P.No.109B of 2007^{dated15.02.20100n the file of the court of the Motor} Accident Claims Tribunal -cum-^{Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad.}

¶169

Between:

¶170

The National lnsurance Company^{Ltd.,, Rep. by its Regional Manager,Moghuls} Court, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶171

...Appellant/ResPondent No.2

¶172

AND

¶173

Baba Sharaduddin ,alias Sharfuddin,^{S/o. Mohd.Yousuf, Muslim, aged 29 years,} Occ: Driver H.No.'12-'15-'1044^{ManikeshwarNagar Near Arts College, Osmnaia} University Hyderabad

¶174

Y.Sunil Kumar, S/o. Ganqadhar^{Rao, Hindu,aged Major, Business} R/o. Flat No.C-4, Annapulna^{Apts., Vijayawada, Krishna District}

¶175

...Respondents

¶176

.A. NO: 2 OF 2010 MACMAM^{P. NO:4298OF 2010}

¶177

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court may be pleased grant stay of all} further proceedings including stay^{of execution of order and decreedated15-2-2010} passed in OP.No. 1098 of 2OO7 by the^TVACT cum^{Chief Judge, CCC, Hyderabad} '

¶178

The Court doth Order and^{Decrecas follows:}

¶179

That the MACMA No.3797 of^{2011 filed by the RTC be and herebyis} dismissed; and

¶180

That the cross-Objections No.15 of 2019 filed by the injured claimants is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.3,73,525^ awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.9,08,765/- with interest @7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 -lnsurance Company is directed to deposit the above amount within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement.

¶181

That after deducting the amount deposited if any earlier. On such deposit, the appellant -injured claimant is permitted to withdrawn the entire amount.

¶182