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 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 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 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, (2019) 7 SCC 217, wherein it is held that “5. We find that