THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.610 of 2022

JUDGMENT

Heard learned counsel for the appellant/injured, Sri Raparthi Venkatesh, learned Standing Counsel for GHMC appearing for respondent No.2, and perused the record.

2. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-injured aggrieved by the order and decree, dt.31.12.2021, passed in MVOP No.443 of 2016 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad (for short “the Tribunal”).

3. The Tribunal after elaborate enquiry and trial, has passed an award and decree granting compensation of Rs.16,50,000/- under various heads. The appellant/injured dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation to the tune of Rs.53,18,000/-.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured submitted that the appellant is an Advocate by profession with 15 years of standing at the Bar Association of High Court for the State of Telangana as on the date of accident, and the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the appellant @ Rs.30,000/- p.m. Further, the Tribunal ought to have considered the disability @ 35-40% as per Ex.A6 disability certificate issued by an Orthopedic Surgeon and the evidence of PW3-Doctor, who treated the appellant/injured. Further, the Tribunal also ought to have considered future prospects @ 25% and awarded interest @ 9% p.a. Further, it is contended that the Tribunal also erred in not granting any amount towards future medical expenditure and an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- under the said count is to be awarded.

5. It is further contended by the counsel for the appellant that as the appellant cannot drive in view of the knee fracture, the Tribunal ought to have granted Rs.13,00,000/-

towards attendant/bystander/driver charges for 13 years as per the applicable multiplier.

6. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-submitted that the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in right perspective and awarded the amount, which is just and proper and interference of this Court is not warranted.

7. In view of the findings of the Tribunal that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and the liability being fixed on respondent Nos.1 & 2 jointly and severally, the only point needs to be determined is – “whether the appellant/injured is entitled for enhancement”

8. As per Ex.A10 i.e., income tax returns for the year 2015-16, the annual income of the deceased was Rs.3,73,670/-. Considering his professional standing of 15 years as on the date of accident, this Court feels it just and reasonable to fix his monthly income at ₹25,000/-. Further, the Tribunal having fixed the disability @ 20%, erred in not granting future prospects, as the disability sustained by the appellant certainly affects his ability to efficiently serve his clients and move comfortably between Courts, and thereby potentially impacts his income and professional responsibilities. Hence, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others¹, as the appellant/injured was aged about 46 years, future prospects of the appellant on account of disability is fixed at 25%. Thus, the net monthly income of the appellant with future prospects comes to Rs.31,250/- (Rs.25,000 + Rs.6,250/-). As the appellant was aged 46 years, the Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of ‘13’ in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and

2017 ACJ 2700

another², and thus, applying the multiplier ‘13’, the total earnings of the appellant comes to Rs.48,75,000/-

(Rs.31,250X 12 X 13).

9. Further, the Tribunal considering Ex.A6 Disability Certificate and the oral testimony of PW3 doctor, who is an Orthopedic Surgeon and who has treated the appellant, has rightly held that the petitioner had suffered di