THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri S. Satyananda Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the entire record.

2. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.1277 of 2016, dated 18.05.2023, wherein the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- was partly allowed awarding compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- with interest at 7% per annum.

3. The brief facts are that the accident which lead to the filing of claim petition had occurred on 14.01.2016 at about 07:00 AM, when the appellant and his wife were proceeding on Activa vehicle bearing No.TS 07 EM 4722 from Kondapur to Bowenpally. When they reached South India Shopping Mall, Kukatpally, one travel bus bearing No.AP 28 TA 9595 came in high speed and dashed the appellant’s motorcycle causing fracture of right scapula, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body.

Due to the losses and expenses incurred due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed claim petition seeking compensation jointly and severally from respondent No.1-owner, respondent No.2-driver and respondent No.3-insurer of the offending bus.

4. The appellant got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got exhibited Exs.A-1 to A-8. Respondent No.3 got marked Ex.B-1 i.e., attested copy of the insurance policy. Upon examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,28,900/- leading to filing of the present appeal.

5. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contended that he is entitled to more compensation than the claimed amount, but the Tribunal awarded meagre compensation of Rs.1,28,900/-. The appellant claimed to have income of Rs.12,000/- per month, but the Tribunal considered only Rs.7,500/- per month. As per Ex.A-5, the disability is 15%, but the same transforms into 40% functional disability. However, the Tribunal has considered only 5% disability. Further, meagre compensation is awarded towards loss of earnings, medical bills and pain and suffering. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities and attendant charges. Hence, sought for enhancement of compensation.

6. As per the record, due to failure to prove the employment and monthly income as a security guard working in Indian Security Force, though, the appellant claimed his income at Rs.12,000/- per month, the Tribunal considered the same at Rs.7,500/- per month for victim of an accident which occurred in the year 2016. In the absence of income proof, the notional income of the appellant working as privately employed person is taken at Rs.7,500/- and the same is just and reasonable and same need not be interfered with.

7. There is one grievous fracture therefore, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the said injury, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.1,000/- towards damages to clothing and Rs.500/- towards medical expenses. The aforesaid compensation amounts which are awarded under various counts are not interfered with.

8. The Tribunal considered the loss of income only for two months. However, any fracture injury normally takes about four months to heal and it may take another month for resuming normal activities. Therefore, the compensation under the head loss of income is awarded for five months, which comes to Rs.37,500/- (Rs.7,500/- X 5 months). No compensation is awarded towards loss of amenities by the Tribunal. Therefore, Rs.50,000/-

is hereby awarded towards loss of amenities.

9. Coming to the aspect of disability, P.W.2- Dr. V.K.V. Prasad is examined to prove the injuries and the disability. The said doctor deposed that there is fracture of right scapula and the same leads to pain and restr