1. Claimant filed a petition under the Motor Vehicles Act seeking enhanced compensation for injuries, disability, and loss of income resulting from a road traffic accident. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 39616
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Renuka Yara, J
Talari Yadaiah – Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar – Respondent
M.A.C.M.A.No.876 of 2013
Important Points
Compensation in motor accident claims can be enhanced by recognizing functional disability that hinders a claimant's specific professional duties and by accepting disability certificates issued by treating doctors for assessing loss of earning capacity.
Subject
Civil - Motor Accident Claims
Headnote
(A) Motor Accident Compensation - Assessment of Income - Enhancement of monthly income based on the claimant's professional status as an LIC agent and building contractor.
(B) Disability Assessment - Admissibility of Medical Certificates - A disability certificate issued by the treating doctor is admissible and can be considered for assessing the percentage of disability and loss of earning capacity, as the treating doctor is best positioned to evaluate the injury and treatment. (Para 9)
(C) Functional Disability - Impact on Profession - Physical limitations such as knee stiffness and pubic injury constitute functional disability for a profession like an LIC agent, which requires extensive travel. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and whether a disability certificate issued by a treating doctor is valid for assessing functional disability.
(B) Disability Assessment - Admissibility of Medical Certificates - A disability certificate issued by the treating doctor is admissible and can be considered for assessing the percentage of disability and loss of earning capacity, as the treating doctor is best positioned to evaluate the injury and treatment. (Para 9)
(C) Functional Disability - Impact on Profession - Physical limitations such as knee stiffness and pubic injury constitute functional disability for a profession like an LIC agent, which requires extensive travel. (Para 10)
Issues: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was adequate and whether a disability certificate issued by a treating doctor is valid for assessing functional disability.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Palle Sriharinath
For the Respondents: P.Satya Manjula
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Palle Sriharinath
For the Respondents: P.Satya Manjula
Table of Contents
2. Appellant contended higher disability and income, while respondent disputed the validity of the disability certificate and the claimant's failure to prove actual loss of income. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
3. The court assessed the claimant's professional nature as a contributor to his mobility requirements, re-evaluated functional disability, and acknowledged valid claims for extra nourishment and future medical expenses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Disability certificates issued by treating doctors are admissible evidence for assessing functional disability where the assessment is grounded in the specifics of the claimant's profession and sustained injuries. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. The appeal is allowed; the compensation awarded is enhanced to Rs.10,88,934/-, directing the respondents to deposit the amount with interest. (Para 11 )
6. Can a disability certificate issued by a private treating doctor, rather than a Medical Board, be accepted in motor accident claims?
Yes. While not gospel truth, such a certificate is admissible; the court must scrutinize its contents against the claimant's medical history and the nature of their profession to determine functional disability. (Para 9 , 10 )
7. How should future prospects be factored into compensation for self-employed individuals in motor accident claims?
Following the settled law, individuals aged 30 are entitled to an addition of 40% of their established monthly income towards future prospects when calculating loss of earning capacity. (Para 10 )
8. Does functional disability in motor accident claims depend exclusively on physical impairment percentage?
No. The assessment must consider the claimant's specific occupation. If a profession requires significant mobility or travel, injuries resulting in stiffness or gait issues incur a higher impact on functionality than for sedentary roles. (Para 9 , 10 )
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Satya Manjula, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2. Perused the entire record.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant/claimant, aggrieved by the award dated 02.01.2013 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for short ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P. No.439 of 2011, wherein the claim petition filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in a road traffic accident was partly allowed, granting compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- with interest at 8% per annum.
3. The appellant met with a road traffic accident on 26.02.2011, in which he sustained injuries on his head, with poly-trauma, multiple fractures to his right leg to tibia, fibula and femur, fracture on pubic bone, fractures on fingers, fractures on the foot, ribs and grievous injuries on his back, abdomen and other parts of the body. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In support of his claim, the appellant examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. The respondent No.2-insurance company neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents on their behalf. Upon considering the evidence adduced by the appellant, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded compensation of Rs.3,99,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.
4. In the grounds of appeal, it is contended that the appellant suffered 45% disability as a result of the accident, due to which he walks with a limp and suffers from stiffness in the knee. It is further contended that he is unable to sit cross-legged or squat and suffers from urinary disturbances on account of the injury to the pubic bone.
The appellant also contends that he was working as an LIC agent and earning Rs.30,000/- per month, whereas the learned Tribunal assessed his monthly income at Rs.5,000/-. On these grounds, the appellant claims that he is entitled to more compensation than the amount claimed.
5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant referred to the award passed by the learned Tribunal to emphasize the nature and severity of the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant, as spoken to by PW.2 and evidenced by Ex.A10, the disability certificate issued by Remedy Hospital. It was further contended that only compensation of Rs.30,000/- was awarded towards disability despite the extent of disability suffered by the appellant.
6. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the appellant had failed to adduce any evidence in proof of his income and therefore, the learned Tribunal had taken his monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings. It was further contended that Ex.A10, the disability certificate issued by Remedy Hospital, cannot be taken into consideration, as the certificate had not been issued by a Medical Board and was not supported by any objective measurements establishing the percentage of disability suffered by the appellant.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 conceded that the learned Tribunal had failed to award compensation towards transportation charges, extra nourishment and the cost of removal of implants. Therefore, the compensation may be awarded under said counts.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen that the appellant is shown to be LIC agent and building contractor. Therefore, his monthly income can be taken at Rs.8,000/- per month, which is above the income of a daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/- per month. The appellant was granted Rs.25,000/- i.e., Rs.5,000/- X 5 months towards loss of income for five m
