Telangana High Court
M Srikanth vs Eda Srinivas Reddy on 1 July, 2025
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA
M.A.C.M.A.No.713 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the
appellant, Sri S.Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for respondent-
National Insurance Company. Perused the record.
2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved
by the order, dated 05.08.2022, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1595 of 2016 by
the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XI
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short,
‘Tribunal’), wherein an amount of Rs.8,28,000/- was awarded as
against the claim petition filed seeking compensation of
Rs.13,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by the appellant in a
road traffic accident.
3. The accident occurred on 10.01.2016 at 7:30 P.M. when the
appellant was going on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 29D 9886 from
B.N.Reddy Nagar towards Seriguda and when he reached
Kattamaisamma temple, the offending car bearing No.AP 27 BA 5999
came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the
motorcycle causing fall of the appellant resulting in fracture of left
femur, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. The appellant
2
got examined P.Ws.1 to 3, got marked Exs.A1 to A12 and the
respondents got marked Ex.B1 copy of insurance policy with consent.
Upon assessing the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded
Rs.8,28,000/- with interest at 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the same,
the present appeal is preferred. At the time of filing the appeal, by way
of amendment, the claim is enhanced from Rs.13,00,000/- to
Rs.50,00,000/-.
4. In grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that he was
earning of Rs.28,000/- per month, but the Tribunal considered
Rs.10,000/- per month in spite of marking Ex.P9 salary certificate.
Further, the appellant suffered partial and permanent disability of
30% which resulted in loss of 70% of the earning capacity and the
same can be treated as 100% functional disability. The Tribunal has
awarded lesser amounts towards loss of earnings, loss of amenities,
loss of marriage prospects and attendant charges. Also, future
prospects were not awarded.
5. During arguments in appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
referred to the income taken by the Tribunal at Rs.10,000/- per month
when the evidence was lead to show Rs.28,000/- per month,
percentage of disability not taken and not awarding any compensation
3
towards future prospects, loss of amenities and meager amount being
awarded towards loss of earnings.
6. In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance
company argued that originally the claim petition was filed seeking
compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- and during appeal, enhancement is
sought to Rs.50,00,000/- without additional pleadings and additional
evidence. It is emphasized that the Tribunal after examining the entire
evidence on record has awarded Rs.8,28,000/-, whereas the appellant
without any additional oral or documentary evidence sought
enhancement of compensation upto Rs.50,00,000/-.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent further argued that injured
was a lift mechanic and therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the
income at Rs.10,000/- per month. It is argued that P.W.3 who is the
employer of the appellant has not filed Income Tax returns and
therefore, the salary claimed cannot be supported.
8. By way of reply, learned counsel for the appellant argued that
whether Income Tax returns are filed or not is a look out of the
employer and in no way connected with the appellant. Referring to the
evidence of the treated doctor P.W.2, it is argued that fracture of femur
is not a small injury but a grievous injury which ultimately resulted in
4
shortening of leg of the appellant and therefore, there is need for
payment of future profits, amenities and attendant charges.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant referred to judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance
Company Limited and others 1, wherein it is held that
“5. We find that MACT has computed the compensation
payable to the appellant on the basis of a notional income of
Rs.6,000/- p.m. on the ground that no evidence of his income was
produced.
5.1. The appellant has however, produced an affidavit by his
employer in this Court. As per the said affidavit, the appellant was
earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident.
5.2. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the employer of the
appellant, we accept that the income of the appellant was
Rs.10,000/- p.m. at the time of the accident, for the purpose of
computing the compensation payable to him.”
(Emphasis supplied)
10. On the basis of above legal ratio laid down by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India, learned counsel for the appellant would
contend that on the basis of an affidavit filed by the employer, the
income can be taken as Rs.10,000/- per month.
11. Firstly, coming to the aspect of monthly income, the appellant
deposed that he was earning Rs.19,000/- as salary and Rs.9,000/- by
doing private work and thus total income is Rs.28,000/- per month.
In support of the same, the appellant relied upon Ex.A9-original salary
1
(2019) 7 SCC 217
5
certificate. As per Ex.A9, the appellant was a lift mechanic working
from 2014 till the date of accident and was paid consolidated salary at
Rs.19,000/- per month and after the accident, the services of the
appellant were terminated on 01.04.2016. As per Ex.A2 charge sheet,
the appellant was doing a private job. Except said information, there
is no other information available about the avocation and income of
the appellant. P.W.3 employer has submitted affidavit stating that he
used to pay consolidated salary of Rs.19,000/- per month to the
appellant. However, during cross-examination, it is elicited that there
is no licence to the appellant for trading as a businessman and that no
GST registration number is available.
12. The evidence of P.W.3 does not inspire confidence on account of
the fact that only salary certificate is produced without producing any
registers, such as, attendance register and statement of salary paid to
the employees. Further, a query is raised as to why the appellant was
issued with termination letter but not a joining letter. The Tribunal
entertained doubt about the oral evidence of P.W.3 for non-fling of
Income Tax returns and GST number and therefore, took the notional
income of Rs.10,000/- per month. On this ground, it is to be seen
that in general a lift mechanic is a skilled person with greater earnings
than a daily wage labourer. At the same time, a lift mechanic is
needed only when there is a breakdown in the lift and not otherwise.
6
The Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month
which is slightly more than that of an unskilled labourer at Rs.8,000/-
per month. Since the job of a lift mechanic requires higher skills, the
notional income of the appellant may be taken as Rs.12,000/- per
month.
13. Coming to the aspect of disability, the Tribunal observed that the
treated doctor did not depose anything regarding shortening of the
limb but deposed that the injury is grievous in nature. As per the
evidence of P.W.2, the appellant is suffering with post traumatic
stiffness following fracture of hip joint. There is restricted movement
of left hip joint and therefore, the same would affect his functional
ability. As a lift mechanic, the fracture of femur resulting in stiffness
of left leg can cause discomfort in performing his avocation and
therefore, the Tribunal taking the percentage of disability at 30%
seems appropriate.
14. To quantify the compensation towards loss of future earnings
due to disability, as per age and income of the deceased, if 40% of the
income is included as future prospects as per law laid down in
National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and others 2,
the annual income would be Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.1,44,000/- +
57,600/-). As per the authority in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
2
2017 (6) 170 (SC)
7
Corporation 3, if the aforesaid annual income is multiplied with
relevant multiplier of ’18’, the loss of future earnings of the appellant
due to disability at 30% is Rs.10,88,640/- (Rs.2,01,600/- x 18 x
30/100).
15. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and
Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses and this Court is not
inclined to interfere with the said findings. Coming to the loss of
earnings, the appellant might have taken atleast 5 months for recovery
and resuming normal work. Therefore, Rs.60,000/- is awarded
instead of Rs.30,000/- which is awarded by the Tribunal. No amount
can be awarded towards attendant charges as there is no oral or
documentary evidence about the same. In addition, the appellant is
awarded Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.50,000/-
towards loss of marriage prospects. In all, the appellant is entitled to
Rs.13,48,640/-.
16. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from
Rs.8,28,000/- to Rs.13,48,640/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization. The enhanced
compensation amount shall be deposited by the respondents within a
3
(2009) 6 S.C.C. 121
8
period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
Judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the
entire amount, without furnishing any security. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall
stand closed.
__________________
RENUKA YARA, J
Date: 01.07.2025
ssp