##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.655 of 2019

DATE: 31.03.2026

Between:

Chekkabandi Srinivas @ Srinivas Reddy.

…..Appellant AND

Rayineni Ravi and two others.

….Respondents

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the

award dated 19.09.2018 passed in M.V.O.P.No.125 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar (for short “the Tribunal”), whereby the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization against the claim of Rs.30,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in

a motor vehicle accident.

2. Heard the submissions of learned counsel for both sides and

perused the record.

2

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the functional disability of 70% despite evidence from P.W.3 and the Medical Board. The learned counsel further contended that the Tribunal erred in not awarding future prospects and just compensation under non-pecuniary heads such as loss of amenities and attendant charges. The learned counsel relied upon the decisions in Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu

and Lokesh B. vs. Suryanarayana Raju Jaggaraju, 2025 (5) ALD 216 (SC)

4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/Insurance Company submitted that the Tribunal has already awarded just compensation. It is argued that the disability of 70% is on the higher side and that the appellant, being a businessman, can supervise his work without significant loss of

income and ultimately prayed this Court to dismiss the appeal.

5. As seen from the material placed on record, on 24-11-2012 at about 3.00 PM, while the appellant was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-15-AW-1112, the respondent No.1, drove TATA ACE trolley auto bearing No.AP-15-TB-8145 in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant's vehicle, due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. There is no dispute with regard to the accident and the involvement of the crime vehicle, as the Tribunal

1 2025 ACJ 1670 (SC)

3

answered Issue No.1 in favor of the claimant. The main grievance of the appellant is with regard to the quantum of compensation. It is the case of the appellant that he sustained profound hemorrhagic shock with an open floating knee, segmental comminuted fractures of the femur and tibia, and significant bone loss. The evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, along with the disability certificate (Ex.A-14), establishes that the appellant suffered 70% functional disability due to post-traumatic stiffness and a 2-inch shortening of the right leg. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision in Hare Krushna Mahanta v. Himadari Sahu’s case (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized awarding "just" compensation regardless of the amount claimed. Further, in Lokesh B. v. Suryanarayana Raju Jaggaraju’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court affirmed that functional disability assessed by medical experts should be fully considered when determining loss of earning capacity. In assessing the loss of future income, the Tribunal failed to add future prospects. Following the settled law in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, 2017 ACJ 2700 (SC) since the appellant was 32 years old and self-employed at the time of the accident, 40% of the income must be added towards future prospects. Accordingly, the compensation for Loss of future income is enhanced to Rs.5,48,800/- after adding 40% towards future prospects. Considering the gravity of three grievous injuries and the

4

skin grafting undergone by the appellant, the compensation under the head of pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,00,000/-. Similarly, the amount awarded for future surgery to remove implants is enhanced from Rs.80,000/- to