THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1123 and 1253 of 2023

COMMON JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.1123 of 2023 and respondent No.1 in MACMA No.1253 of 2023 and Sri Somanchi Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the appellant in MACMA No.1253 of 2023 and respondent No.2 in MACMA No.1123 of

2023. Perused the entire record.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as they were arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The MACMA No.1123 of 2023 is filed by the claimant and MACMA No.1253 of 2023 is filed by the Insurance Company, aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.1916 of 2016, dated 30.12.2022. The Insurance company is questioning the quantum of compensation awarded while the claimant is seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. The claim petition was filed on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident that occurred on 11.09.2014 at 1.30 pm., when he was travelling on a motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-CV-1216 from KPHB to JSB Honda show room. When the motorcycle reached Metro, while taking ‘U’ turn, one goods vehicle bearing No.AP-28-TB-7657 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant’s motorcycle from backside causing his fall, resulting in crush injury to right hand, fracture to right wrist, fractures of 2, 3, 4 and 5 fingers, abdominal injury, deep cut injury to left knee, head injury and other blunt injuries all over the body. In view of the injuries sustained, the claim petition is filed seeking compensation ofRs.35,00,000/- with interest at 18% per annum from the respondents jointly and severally.

5. The claimant got examined P1 to 4 and exhibited Exs.A1 to A10. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company did not examine any witness but got marked Ex.B1/True copy of policy. Upon considering the evidence adduced, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.27,00,700/- with interest at 6% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant as well as Insurance company preferred appeals.

6. The Insurance Company in grounds of appeal alleged that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs.20,000/- per month in the absence of proof of income. Further, it is alleged that the disability percentage is taken at 60% when there is a gap of six years between date of accident and the disability certificate taken. The disability certificate is with respect to one limb but not total body and the claimant can work as a Marketing Manager. Awarding of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering according to the Insurance Company is on the higher side and therefore, prayed that the impugned award be set aside.

7. The claimant sought enhancement of compensation alleging that the Tribunal has erroneously considered his disability at 50%, that the medical bills are filed for Rs.3,19,384/- but Rs.2,45,700/- only granted. The marriage prospects of the claimant have decreased due to injuries and said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal. Further, loss of amenities, loss of social status and mental agony are not considered. Lastly, the Tribunal awarded interest at 6% per annum which ought to have been 9% per annum.

8. The claimant is allegedly a Marketing Manager with income of Rs.30,000/- per month. No document is filed in proof of income nor avocation. Ex.A10 is the bank statement which shows income varying from Rs.500/- to Rs.49,107/-. The Tribunal considering the variation has taken the aggregate income at Rs.20,000/- per month for a 21 year old boy that too for the year 2016. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with said finding as the notional income for all practical purposes for an inexperienced person is considered on higher side, that too in absence of convincing evidence about the claimant being a Marketing Manager.

9. The Tribunal has taken the functional disability at 50% on the basis evidence of PW