PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. SMT. NAMITA CHHABRA

3 .4/d.1', IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWo THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIOENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 28 OF 2021 Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, aggrieved by the Decree and Judgment passed in M.V.O.P No.897 of 2018, daled 0211212019, on the file of the Court of the Chairman fi/otor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Between: Surender Kumar, S/o Lakhan li/lahato, Aged. 36 Years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o H. No.4-8-7671774, Gowliguda, Hyderabad -1 ...AppellanUAppellant AND '1 . The Managing Director and Chairman and 2 Others, T.S.R.T.C, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C, Uppal Bus Depot, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. P. Saidaiah, S/o P. Narsimha, Age.44 Years, Occ, TSRTC Driver, R/o H.No. 3-1 06, Vangannagudam Village, Vempahad.lVlandal, Nalgonda Diskict. ,Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: SRI SRINIVASA RAO VUTLA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI R.ANURAG The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA M.A.C.M.A.NO.2a OF 20.21 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 02.12.2019 in M.V.O.P.No.B97 of 2J18 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"). 2. For convenience and clarity, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The case of the petitioner before the Tribunat wzrs that on O2.IO.2O|7 at about 09:25 a.m., while the petitiorLcr was going along with his brother on a two wheeler bearing registration No.Ap- O9BL-3988, and when they reached Nizam Cafe, Chil:kaclpally, one RTC Bus bearing registration No.AP- 1 IZ-7 106 c.rrne at a high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler from behind, dur: to u,hich the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Thus, .rr: claimed a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/-. 4. The respondent No.l and 2 have filed counte:- denying the averments of the petition with regard to occurrence rrl the accidcnt, age, avocation and income of the petitioner. 'Ihey further ! I

I l ETD,J MACMA No.28 2021 contended that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligence of the petitioner himself and that there is no rash and negligence on part of the bus driver. 5. Based on the above pleadings, trial Court has framed the following issues for trial:- "1. Whether the pleoded accident dated 02.10.2017 occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner Surender Kumar due to the rash and negtigent driuing of the 3,a respondent/ diuer of TSRTC bus beaing registration No.AP-1 1Z-7106? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, from uhom and to what ertent? 3. To u.that relieJ? " 6. To prove their case, the petitioners got examined as PW1 to PW4 and Exs.Al to A14 were markcd. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced. 7. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/ - with interest @ 9ok per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeai is preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. Heard the submissions of Sri Kota Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri N. Vausdeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TSRTC. 9. The learned counsel for the appeliant has submitted that the Tribunal has granted a meagre amount of Rs. 1,30,0OO/- as against ) ' '.,u 2 .1

ETD,J MACMA No.28 2021 hrs claim of Rs.20,0O,O00/-. He further arglred that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence produced by him and that it failed to appreciate the evidence on proper prospectLve. He further argued that the Disability Certificate liled by him under Ex.A7 is not considered by the Tribunal and has also arg-led that the pe titioner has fi1ed IT Returns in proof of his earningr; and thus the Tribunal has considered the earnings as Rs.25,000/- per month, bu t has failed to award the future prospects. He fu:ther submitted that the Tribunal has granted meagre amounts under various hcads and thus prayed to enhance the compensatio:r 10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider th,: contributory negligence on part of the petitioner and that th,: accident has occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner and that there was no negligence of the bus driver. He further contr:rrded that the Tribunal has granted a just compensation of Rs. ,30,000/- and thus, lhe petitioner is not entitled to any enhancemr.nt. 11. In view of rhe above rival contentions, the points that arise for determination in this Appeal are as follows:- Wrether the claimant is entitled conrperLsation as praAed for ? for enhau:ement of Whether the Order and Decree passed by the Tribunal neecl anA interkrence ? 3 1 2

EID,] MACMA No.28 2021 4 3. To whot reli{ ? 12. Point No.1: a) The petitioner is aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal. It is his case that he used to undertake Interior Decoration with Wood Carvings in the Houses, Corporate Companies, Banks etc., by empioying assistants and thus he used to earn Rs.25,000/- per month out of his avocation. He has also filed IT Returns in support of his claim under Ex.A9. The IT Returns pertain to 2016-2017, 2Ol7-2018, 2Ol8-2O19. The accident occurred in the year 2077. On a perusal of IT Returns and the Bank Statement of the petitioner filed under Ex.A10, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the injured-petitioner as Rs.25,0O0/ - which appears to be justihed. b) The petitioner has frled MLC under Ex.A3 which discloses that the petitioner has sustained grievous injury and was treated in Gandhi .Hospital as inpatient. The OPD record and the Discharge Summary of Gandhi Hospital is filed under Ex.A4 which discloses that the petitioner was admitted on 02.1O.2017 and was discharged on 08. 1O.2017 and rt discloses the details of the treatment underwent by the petitioner for the injuries sustained by him in Road Traffic Accident. Another Discharge SIip is frled by the petitioner which is issued by the Max Medi trmergency Hospital \

ETD,] VIACMA No.28 2021 which discloses that he was admitted on 23.ll.ilc17 and was discharged on 05. 12.2017 . The OPD Registratic,n at Gandhi Hospital is elicited from Ex.A7. The contention of the appellant counsel is that the date of admission and discha:61e is wrongly reiorded by the Tribunal and that the Tribunal has given a wrong finding suspecting the treatment underwent by the pe1 itioner' c) The Tribunal has considered the date on Ex.A7 to be 3O.l I .2017 and has disbelieved the evidence of pt:titioner with regard to his treatment holding that the petitione:r cannot be admitted in trvo hospitals simultaneously. A perusal of Ex.A7 reveals that he gol registered in OPD on 30.10.2011' which means to say that after his inpatient treatment he has appr,tached Gandhi Hospital as an outpatient from 3O.lO.2Ol7 and ht: is prescribed with certain mectcation and it also discloses that he u'as treated by reinforcing the cast at the site of surgery. The Medical Investigation Reports of the petitioner are filed unC,:r Ex.AS and the Medical Bills are filed under E;x.Al2 to a tcti amount of Rs.14,3O2/-. d) The Discharge Summary of Gandhi Hospital re:veals that he has sustained injuries over right leg and right hand due to the accident. It is also revealed that since he has taken Lreatment at Gandhi Hospital, the treatment would be free of ,:651, but the 5 t

ETD,J MACMA No.28 2021 medical bills frled under Ex.A11 disciose that he took treatment at Max Medi Emergency Hospital, Nawada where he was admitted on 23.11.2017 and discharged on 05.12.2017. e) PW2lDr. C. Pradeep Chandra is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Gandhi Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital with a history of accident and he was diagnoscd to have suffered with fracture of candyle humorus and u,ith intra articular extcnsion. He was discharged on 08. IO.2017 and that he attended outpatient treatment on 3O.lO.2Ol7 on observation that the fracture was not united he was again applied rvith POP cast. Ex.AS to A7 were issued by their hospital f) PW3 / Dr. Baidyanath Kumar is an Orthopedic Surgeon in Max Medi Emergency Hospital, his evidence reveals that the petitioner was admitted in their hospital on 23.1| .2017 and a Surgery was conducted at their hospital by open reduction and internal hxation and that the petitioner was discharged on 05.12.2077 and that they charged him with a bill of Rs.1,7a,800/-. Ex.AS, A,6 and A11 have been issued by their hospital and Ex.A11 the bill was issued by their hospital and the bills pertaining to medicines and investigation reports are Iiled under Ex.A12 which were mostly carried out at Patna-Bihar State as per their advise. 6 \

- ETD,] I4ACMA No.28 2021 g) In his cross examination he admitted that the tr:titioner was still suffering with pain and was unable to stretch his left e.lbow when he was admitted in their hospital. No surgery u'as conducted on him at Gandhr Hospital prior to admission in rheir hospital. ThUs, nothing contra is elicited from the evidence of I)\V2 and PW3 to discredit their evidence. Thus taking all this into t:cr n sideration, it is held that the petitioner sustained grievous irLjr-rri6s it'r ,n" accident and thus undeni,cnt treatment at Gandhi tlospital and also in Max Mecli i{ospital. Thus considering the nature of injuries sustained by him and the period of treatment undr:rgone by the petitioner, it is opined that the amount granted bv t he Tribunal towards pain and suflering as Rs.5O,OOO/- is justificd. h) An amount of Rs. 1 ,89 ,1O2 I - i.e., (Rs. 1 ,74,800 r t +,3621 1" awarded towards rnedical expenses. In addition to it, Rs.20,OO0/- is awarded towarcls incidental expenses like extra nourishment, attendant charges, transportation. Thus an ilmount of Rs.2,O9,lO2l - (Rs.1,89,102 + 20,000) is awarded unr-cr this head. i) The petitioner could provc that he used to earr. Rs.2S,O00/- per month as hc has filed IT returns under Bx.A9. Hrilh regard to the loss of earnings, Income Tax Returns shows that tlre petitioner earned a sum of Rs.3,05,95O/ in 2018-19 and the plross profit is Rs.6,47,25O1- in 20lu-2O19. Considering the eviderr:e on record I t

I ETD,] MACMA No.2E 2021 filed under trx.A 1 1 , the income of the petitioner is assessed as Rs.25,000/- per month. The petitioner was under treatment for about two months. Taking another two months time lor recovery, loss of earnings for four months is awarded which comes to Rs.25,O00 x 4= Rs.l,OO,OOO/-. j) A perusal of IT Returns would further show that the income of the petitioner in 2018-2019 is shown to be Rs.6,47,250/- towards gross profit, while the net profit is shown as Rs.3,O5,95O/ -. Considering the same the Tribunal has held that since it is elicited that the petitioner has not become disabled due to the accident, no amount is awarded towards disability. k) The contention of the petitioner is that he sustained 40%o disability due to the accident and that due to the said disability, he rs no[ able to carry out his avocation. He has filed Ex.A6/Disability Certificate. The said Doctor who issued Ex.A6 is examined as PW3. His evidence reveals that the petitioner has sustaine d 4ook disability in the accident and that it is partial, permanent in nature and the nature of injury causing the disability is mentioned as condyle fracture of left elbow and it is also shown that he has difhculty in lifting weight, due to elbow stiffness. Thus, the Doctor has assessed 4O% disability. 8 ! a t

ETD,I MACMA No.28 2021 l) Keeping in view the dicta laid down in Rolj Kumar Vs. AJag Kumar and. Anotherr, the disability in relation rr whole body is scaled down to 2Ooh. The loss of future income is rt:;sessed to be 57o. It is only tht: stiffness in the elbow which is sl Lr;wn to be the disability which may not hinder his functioninl; as Interior Decorator, the same is evident from the lncome Tax Returns filed by him, since his income is shown to be on the ris,_. rn 2Olg-2O19 which is subsequent to the accident. Thereforr, only So/o of functional disability is taken into consideration. m) The age of the petitioner as mentioned in rhe disability certificate is '35 years as on 02. lO.2OlZ. In the light of Scrta Venna Vs. Delhi Trdnsport Corporation2 the multiplier that has to be applied for his age is '16,. Therefore, appll.ing the said multiplier the compensation for loss o[ luture eart.ir-rgs would be (10,000 + 25ooo) = 35,000 x t2 = 4,2o,ooo/- x 5/1oo = (21,000 x16) = 3,36,O00/-, n) In all, the petitioner is entitled to the following c:ompensation amounts: 9 sI. No. 1. Name of the heads Compensation under the hcad 'in;uries, shock, Pain and suffering Awarded by' this Court r Rs. 'zor t i t.y scc :+l 'zooe 1oy scc rz t s0,000/-

ETD,I MACMA No,28 2021 10 Compensation of loss of earnings 1,00,000/- I I FqS! four months) ' 3. I Loss of future earnlngs aue to disability : Compensation under the head of , hospital, Medical Expenses, 2,O9,tO2/- transport, extra-nourishmert Total 6,21,!9-?l: 6,9s,OOO/- , Rounded up to o) Therefore, the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled is calculated as Rs.6,95,000/ - while the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,3O,OO0/ . Therefore, it is opined that the petitioner is entitled for enhancemcnt of compensation. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly. 13. POINT NO.2: It is held that the order and decree passed by the Tribunal need to be modihed with regard to the quantum of compensation. This Court has enhanced the compensation to Rs.6,95,OOO/- from that of Rs.1,30,000/- i.e., awarded by the Tribunal. Point No.2 is answered accordingly. 14. POINT NO.3: In the result, M.A.C.M.A hled by the claimant is partly allowed, modifying the Order and Decree dated O2.12.2079 in M.V.O.P.No.897 of 2Ol8 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs. i,3O,OOO/- to 6,95,0OO/- and the 3,36,000/- \ L

11 //TRUE COPY// ETD,J MACMA No.28 2021 SD/. N.SRIHARI PEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER \ enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interrrsit @ Z .S%" per annum from the date of claim petition till realizatior. However, the interest for the period of delay is forfeited. Thc responCent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to deposit the compensation amoun_ wilh accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount it- any already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant is entitlerd to withdraw lhe said amount without furnishing any security. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this appeal, shall stand closed. I To, AS,NVB 1. The Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri R.Anurag, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.28 ot 2021 R s 't, ( J ^^ r: !l h ),.Y .\. *'-$r tot, a6 * r{ MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS 6 \q *

134441 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA MOTOR ACCIDENT C IVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 28 OF 2021 Between: AND !u-rgn!e-r!q1ar, S/o Lakhan Mahato, Aged. 36 years, Occ. Carpenter, R/o H.No.4-B-767l774, Gowtiguda, Hyderabad"-l ...AppellanUAppellant 'l . The^Managing Director and Chairman and 2 Others, T.S.R.T.C, Bus Bhavan, RTC X Roads, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Depot Manager, T.S.R.T.C, Uppal Bus Depot, Uppal, Ranga Reddy District. 3. P. Saidaiah, S/o P, Narslmfa, Age 44 years, Occ. TSRTC Driver, R/o H.No. 3-106, Vangannagudam Village,-Vempahad lilandal, Natgonda Disiril.' Appear rired under section 173 or Motor ""nT.:oi"., I:,"ill: Decree and Judgment passed in M.V.o.p No.897 of 2018, datei'our2nor'g, on the file of the court of the chairman Motor Accident claims / Tribunal- cum - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the irateria'i papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of sri K.subba Rao, Advocate for the Appellants and of sri R-Anurag, Advocate appeared for Respondent No..1 and 2. None appeared respondent No.3. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1. That the MACMA fired by the craimant be and hereby is parfly ailowed, modifying the order and Decree dated 02.12.2019 in-M.v.b.p.ilo.897 of 20'18 passed by the Motor Accident craims Tribunar-cum-chief Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad, enhancing the compensation from Rs.1 ,30,600/_ to 6'95,000/- and the enhanced amount of compensation shal carry inierest @ 7.55 per annum from the date of claim petition till realization.

,'t Y'.. 2. That however, the intrest for the period of delay is forfeitr:d 3. That the respondent Nos.l to 3 are directed to depcsit the compensetion amount with accrued interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment after deducting the amount if nay already deposited. 4. That on such deposit, the appellant is be and hereby entifled to withdraw the said amount without furnishing any security. 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Court shall stands confirmed in all other respects; and 6. That there be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- N.SRIHARI DEPUTY REGISTRAR \\ ------"1 //TRUE COPY// \ -.-. To, becrroru oFFrcER The Chairman Motor Accident Claims / Tribunal- Cun - Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad Two CD Copies ,| 2 AS/NVB

HIGH COURT DATED:1110612025 DECREE MACMA.No.28 ot 2021 MACMA IS PARTLY ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS A \t1 tp