THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA M.A.C.M.A.No.63 of 2023

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri C.Mohan Prakash, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairperson, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Suryapet (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No. 206 of 2015, dated 26.07.2022. The claim petition was filed on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road accident that occurred on 30.04.2015. The appellant, along with his friends, was travelling from Kommala to Gundepuri in a Tavera vehicle bearing No. AP-24-AT-7842. On the return journey, at about 7:30 PM, when the vehicle reached near Gangadevamma Cheruvu Katta on the outskirts of Kommala village, the driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over it. As a result, the vehicle turned turtle, causing grievous injuries to the appellant and other passengers. One of the passengers, Sri Poloju Uppalaiah, died on the spot.

3. The claimant filed the present appeal seeking compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- from the respondents jointly and severally. In support of the claim petition, the appellant examined PWs.1 to 4 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. Respondent No.3 exhibited Ex.B1, a copy of the insurance policy. Upon considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been preferred.

4. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in not considering the monthly income of the appellant, thereby failed to award compensation under the head of loss of income. It is further submitted that the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, marked as Ex.A4, clearly indicates a permanent disability of 40% to the appellant's left leg. However, the Tribunal erroneously treated the same as a temporary disability and did not award any compensation towards loss of income on account of the said disability. Further, the appellant sought compensation for loss of future prospects, contending that the permanent ankle injury sustained in the accident has resulted in the loss of appellant’s avocation as a dancer.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the absence of any proof of income, the notional income should be considered as at least Rs.9,000/- per month. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.3 contended that where there is no proof of income, the notional income must be determined in accordance with the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited¹. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the said judgment has since been overruled, and therefore, the notional income cannot be considered on that basis.

7. Having regard to the rival contentions of both parties and in the absence of documentary evidence regarding income, the notional income of the appellant is taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. As per Ex.A4, issued by the District Medical Board, the appellant has sustained 40% permanent disability. Considering the nature of the disability i.e., an ankle injury and its likely impact on the appellant’s ability to work, whether as a dancer or as an unskilled labourer, it is evident that it would significantly hinder his earning capacity. Accordingly, the functional disability is also taken at 40%. The appellant was aged 27 years as on the date of the accident, and accordingly, the appropriate multiplier to be applied is 17. Considering the appellant's age, he is entitled to payment of 40% towards future prospects. Therefore, the compensation under the head of Loss of income due to disability