SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 15665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. S. Bhanumathi, J
SHAIK ROSHAN ZAMEER – Appellant
Versus
K. RAMANJANEYULU & ANR. – Respondent
Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No: 710 of 2006



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: J. Seshagiri Rao
For the Respondents: K. Subrahmanyam

To claim compensation for permanent disability leading to future loss of earning capacity, the claimant must strictly prove the impact of the disability on their specific occupation; a medical disability certificate alone is insufficient evidence of loss of income.

Headnote:The appellant filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the adequacy of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The case involved a motor vehicle accident where the claimant sustained injuries to the right leg, leading to a claim for compensation based on medical expenses, pain, suffering, and loss of future earnings due to alleged permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,000. The primary issue was whether the claimant was entitled to higher compensation for permanent disability leading to future loss of earning capacity. The court reasoned that "Mere filing of disability certificate which is normally issued basing on the orthopedic physical disability is not sufficient to establish future loss of income" and emphasized that such a claim depends on the nature of the disability relative to the nature of the occupation. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and the decree, dated 18.11.2005, in M.V.O.P.No.377 of 2004 before the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Kadapa.

The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents before the Tribunal.

The case of the claimant, briefly stated, is as follows:

On 26.11.2003, the claimant and his friend, Shaik Sikinder, were going on a TVS Victor moped on Kadapa – Rayachoty main road. Near Mulavanka bridge, the driver of auto bearing No.AP22 T 9144 of the respondent No.1 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle. As a result, the claimant and his friend fell down and sustained multiple injuries. The claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Kadapa, and was treated there for one week as an inpatient. He was later shifted to another hospital for better treatment. He underwent an operation to his right leg. Steel rod and screws were fixed. He was bed ridden for six months. He incurred expenses of more than Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment etc. He was working as salesman in a cloth shop and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. Due to the injuries suffered in the accident, he became disabled and unable to attend any work. He lost his job and earnings. So, he is claiming Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation.

The respondent No.1 remained ex parte.

The respondent No.2 filed written statement opposing the claim denying the averments in the petition and further stating that the amount of compensation claimed is excessive.

On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and exhibits A1 to A10 were marked. The claimant also got examined Shaik Fakruddin of Kadapa as P.W.2 and Dr. G.Venkata Subbaiah as P.W.3. Ex.A1 is the certified copy of F.I.R. in Crime No.122 of 2003 of C.K. Dinne P.S., Ex.A2 is the certified copy of wound certificate; Ex.A3 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A4 is the photostat copy of out-patient ticket; Ex.A5 is the case sheet; Ex.A6 is the hospital expenditure statement; Ex.A7 is the out-patient slips (numbering two); Ex.A8 is the disability certificate; Ex.A9 is the salary certificate; and Ex.A10 is scanning report along with bill.

On behalf of the respondent No.2, neither oral nor documentary evidence was produced.

After considering the evidence of both the parties, the Tribunal held that the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

As against the claim of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,000/- and as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment, the Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/-. Similarly, as against the claim of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal granted Rs.10,000/-. In addition thereto, the Tribunal awarded Rs.22,000/- towards loss of earnings and partial disability as a lumpsum amount. For loss of income during the period of his treatment, the Tribunal was of the opinion that there was no permanent physical disability resulting in future loss of income. Thus, in all, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was granted as compensation payable together with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the principal amount of compensation from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The claim was allowed against both the respondents.

Aggrieved by the award, this appeal was filed by the claimant contending that the amount awarded under different heads is inadequate.

To claim compensation on the ground of permanent disability leading to future loss of earning capacity, the claimant has to strictly prove the same. Mere filing of disability certificate which is normally issued basing on the orthopedic physical dis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top