Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 987 (TS)

Ch. L. B. Priya v. Narayana Educational Society

2025-09-08

NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

body2025
JUDGMENT : NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA, J. M.A.C.M.A.No.201 of 2020 is preferred by the claimant and M.A.C.M.A.No.441 of 2020 is preferred by the Insurance Company against the Award and decree passed by the XIV Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred to ‘learned Tribunal’) in O.P.No.1282 of 2013, dated 05.09.2019, wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 22,23,954/- along with 9% interest p.a. for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an road accident occurred on 29.12.2011. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the learned Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that claimant earlier filed O.P.No.1282 of 2013 under Section 166 read with Section 140 (c) of M.V.Act, 1988 seeking compensation for injuries sustained by her. On 29.12.2011, the petitioner was proceeding towards her residence in Maruthi Alto Car bearing No.AP-09-BF-7335 and when the petitioner was proceeding slowly on the extreme left of the road and reached near KPHB Colony, the driver of the Swaraj Mazda Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145, drove his bus with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and took sudden right turn without giving any signals and dashed the petitioner’s car due to which the petitioner and Sri Srikanth (Driver of the car) sustained multiple fracture and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was taken to Anupama Hospital, KPHB, Kukatpally for treatment. The Police registered a case, vide Crime No.122/2011, against the Bus driver under Section 337 of IPC. 4. The contention of the claimant before the Tribunal was that as on the date of accident the petitioner was hale and health and was aged about 23 years and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per month, as she was cine artist by profession and used work in Modeling Industry and worked with various brands in the markets for their promotional adds in print and electronic media and also work as freelancer in Event management. Due to accident, claimant suffered head injury and deep facial lacerations on the face and undergone multiple plastic surgeries for disfiguration of face and the petitioner face lost natural charm for which she lost all her modeling and acting projects, for which claimant claimed Rs.25,00,000/- for the said accident, as compensation. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-Driver of the Bus remained ex-parte. 5. Before the learned Tribunal, respondent No.1-Driver of the Bus remained ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company filed counter-affidavit, denying all the averments made in the claim petition, including the manner in which the accident took place, age, avocation and income of the petitioner and denied that claimant was hit by Crime Vehicle and denied the disfiguration of the face of the petitioner and contended that there was a violation of mandatory provisions under Section 143 (c) of M.V.Act, since the respondent No.1 failed to furnish the particulars of the policy date, time, place of accident, particulars of injury and name of the driver and driving license particulars and further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 6. Basing on the pleadings and averments made by both the counsels, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues which reads as under: i) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-28-X-8145 causing injuries to the petitioner? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? iii) To what relief? 7. During the course of trial, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A30 and Ex.X1 are marked on behalf of the claimant. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of respondents. After perusing the oral and documentary evidences and going into the entire record and the evidences placed by both the parties, the learned Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part and granted compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along with interest @ 9 % per annum. 8. Being unsatisfied and aggrieved by the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal, the present appeals were filed by both the claimant and respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that there is no dispute with regard to accident and the injuries sustained by the petitioner. The petitioner was 23 years at the time of the accident and she was quite hale, healthy and after Graduation, the petitioner joined Paulus Software Technologies Private Limited as associate work. It is contended that the petitioner was very beautiful and was having attracting natural face due to which he was selected as freelancer in Event Management by big companies, thereafter she got an opportunity to excel talent and skill in modelling industry, where she got offer roles in Telugu and Tamil Movies. It is contended that the petitioner was very beautiful and was having attracting natural face due to which he was selected as freelancer in Event Management by big companies, thereafter she got an opportunity to excel talent and skill in modelling industry, where she got offer roles in Telugu and Tamil Movies. The petitioner went to abroad for shooting of the movies for about two month and day by day petitioner was becoming famous as a Model, Anchor, Event Manger and Movie Artist and the petitioner participated in many TV channels and advertisements and she had done nearly 174 programmes as Event Manger and her work were reflected in the newspapers and magazines (Ex.A27 to Ex.A30) and the petitioner used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant further contended that due to accident, the petitioner suffered multiple lacerations over right cheek scalp and right eye brow, total facial injuries causing disfiguration of face and other injuries on all over the body. After the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Anupama Hospital, Hyderabad and admitted in the hospital as inpatient from 29.12.2011 to 30.12.2011 and was under IV antibiotics, analgesics, antipyretics. Thereafter, the petitioner undergone multiple surgeries for the disfiguration of face and underwent surgery for her eye-lid. The petitioner has spent huge amount for the surgeries, extra-nourishment, private attendant, hospital charges. As her face was badly injured and become un- appeaseable, the petitioner career went completely down and the petitioner lost all her projects and suffered financially and mentally. 11. Learned counsel for the claimant further submits that the learned Tribunal having accepted the contention of the claimant that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime bus and also accepted the fact that the petitioner suffered huge financial loss and suffered 100% disability due to face disfiguration, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly taken the income of the petitioner on lower side without considering the income certificate i.e., Ex.A17 to A30 and also oral evidence of PW4-Sri Kottu Babu, Production and fixed notional monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/- per month and granted less compensation. The learned Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses which is against the law, as in injury case there shall not be any deductions towards personal expenses and also granted meager compensation under various heads and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation amount. The learned Tribunal had wrongly deducted 1/3rd towards personal expenses which is against the law, as in injury case there shall not be any deductions towards personal expenses and also granted meager compensation under various heads and prayed this Court to enhance the compensation amount. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the excessive and exorbitant compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along with 9% interest p.a., and the learned Tribunal grossly erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.14,11,128/- in the absence of disability certificate by considering 100% disability and loss of earning in the absence of documentary evidence and further submitted that the claimant failed to prove that the loss of future earnings and the non-availability of future opportunities in her career. 13. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company further contended that Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,00,000/- towards pain and sufferance for simple injures in the absence of pleadings and Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and erred in awarding the compensation of Rs.22,23,954/- along with 9% interest per annum under all heads which is highly excessive and exorbitant and accordingly prayed this Court to set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company. 14. Heard Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy , learned counsel for the claimant and Sri V.Sambasiva Rao , learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Perused the material on record. 15. Admittedly, the both the parties have filed appeals against the Award passed by the learned Tribunal. As such, there is dispute regarding liability of the respondents and income of the petitioner. Therefore, the points which arose before this Court in the present appeal and cross appeal are that: i) Whether the respondents can be exonerated from their liability? If so to what extent? ii) Whether the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the petitioner. iii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for the enhanced compensation, if so, to what extent? Point Nos:1 to 3 16. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered grievances injuries on the face and all over the body due to accident occurred on 29.12.2011. The petitioner was a cine artist as on the date of accident. Ex.A1 and A2 i.e, FIR and Charge-sheet shows that driver of the Crime Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145 as accused. Point Nos:1 to 3 16. Admittedly, the petitioner suffered grievances injuries on the face and all over the body due to accident occurred on 29.12.2011. The petitioner was a cine artist as on the date of accident. Ex.A1 and A2 i.e, FIR and Charge-sheet shows that driver of the Crime Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145 as accused. The bus driver have admitted the offenses before the learned IX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad on 26.05.2012 in C.C.No.174/2012 and paid fine of Rs.500/-, however the driver of the crime bus did not appear or file counter-affidavit denying the charges leveled against him before the Tribunal or before this Court. Therefore, it can be safely arrived that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Bus bearing No.AP-28-X-8145, hence the respondents cannot be exonerated from their liability. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in favour of claimant and against respondents. 17. As far as compensation is concerned, the petitioner before the learned Tribunal has stated she used to earn about Rs.20,000/- per month, however as per Ex.A25, the total income of the petitioner was shown as Rs.1,84,000/- per annum. On keen perusal of the Ex.A25, one Sai Mohan-Le Associate has issued the said Ex.A25, but there is no date of issuance of said certificate and also there is no heading for issuance of such certificate, nevertheless the petitioner has not filed any Income Tax acknowledgment receipt issued by the Government of India, which will be provided after filing of Income Tax return and also the petitioner has not examined the said person who issued Ex.A25. The learned Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner as Rs.7,000/- which appears to be reasonable and needs no interference. 18. The learned Tribunal relied upon the ruling laid down in Rekha National Insurance Company Limited , [ 2013 ACJ 2161 (SC)] wherein, it was held that 100% functional disability shall be taken, even without 100% disability certificate, while accessing disability for the actress who cannot work in films or Television Serials in future due to injuries sustained on the fair and the relevant paragraphs are extracted for read reference: “38. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. For a film actress, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in the films and in T.V. serials. It is in her evidence that on account of the accident her face was disfigured, she has put on weight and has become fat and therefore she is unable to perform the role as an actress in films in future. Having regard to the nature of vocation she has been carrying on and wishes to carry on with in future, the opportunity is lost on account of the disfigurement of her face, to act in the films as an actress either as a heroine or actress in supporting role or any other role to be played in T.V. serials, albums and also as a model. It is in the evidence of the appellant that as per the District Medical Board of Sambalpur, her permanent disability is 30%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and observations made by this Court and Karnataka High Court in the cases referred to supra, we have to record a finding of fact that the appellant’s permanent disability should be treated as 100% functional disablement as she cannot act in the films and in T.V. serials in future at all. Therefore, on account of the aforesaid reasons, she has suffered functional disability. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Mubasir Ahmed[15]. This Court has held that loss of earning capacity is not a substitute for percentage of physical disablement. It is simply one of the factors taken into account to award just and reasonable compensation. Even though the claimant does not suffer from 100% physical permanent disability, he suffers from 100% functional disability if he loses the capacity to pursue his work as a result of the accident. It is worthwhile to extract paragraph no. 8 from the aforesaid judgment which reads as under: “8. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a substitute for percentage of the physical disablement. It is one of the factors taken into account. In the instant case the doctor who examined the claimant also noted about the functional disablement. In other words, the doctor had taken note of the relevant factors relating to loss of earning capacity. Loss of earning capacity is, therefore, not a substitute for percentage of the physical disablement. It is one of the factors taken into account. In the instant case the doctor who examined the claimant also noted about the functional disablement. In other words, the doctor had taken note of the relevant factors relating to loss of earning capacity. Without indicating any reason or basis the High Court held that there was 100% loss of earning capacity.”” 19. In view of the judgment cited above, the learned Tribunal has rightly taken the 100% functional disability, as the petitioner’s face was disfigure and for the film actress or cine artist, the physical appearance particularly the facial features are very important to act in films. 20. The learned Tribunal granted Rs.42,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs.5,00,00/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.67,954/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- awarded under transport and other expenditure which appears to be reasonable and on ground realties and needs no interference. 21. The learned Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd of personal expenses from the notional income of the petitioner, which ought not have been deducted and the personal deduction applies in death cases. In Rahul Ganpatrao Sable vs Laxman Maruti Jadhav (non-reportable) , [S.L.P.(C) No.26871 of 2019] , dated 05.07.2023 held that there could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses in the injury cases and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder for ready reference: “The High Court deducted 50% of compensation towards personal expenses. The present case being not of death and the claim not being made by the dependents, but the same being by a survivor in the accident with severe injuries resulting into permanent disability, there could not be any justification for deduction of personal expenses. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan D. (supra).” 22. Hence considering the above judgment, it can be safely arrived that it is well established principle that claimant is entitled for full notional income without any personal dedication in injury cases. 23. We do not approve the said deduction in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Lalan D. (supra).” 22. Hence considering the above judgment, it can be safely arrived that it is well established principle that claimant is entitled for full notional income without any personal dedication in injury cases. 23. On overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above cited decisions this Court is of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation as modified and recalculated as below and given in the table for easy reference. 24. The monthly income of the petitioner can be notionally taken as Rs.7,000/- per month. Apart from that, as per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others , 2017 ACJ 2700 and considering the age of the petitioner as 23 years, which is not disputed by either of the parties, additional 40% of the income has to be added towards future prospects to the monthly income of the petitioner. Therefore, the monthly income of the petitioner would come to Rs.9,800/- (Rs.7,000/- + Rs.2,800/-) and the annual income of the petitioner would come to Rs.1,17,600/- (Rs.9,800/- x 12 months). 25. As per the column No.4 of Table fixed in the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)] , and considering the age of the petitioner as 23 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the petitioner’s age is ‘18’. Thus, the total loss of income the petitioner would come with 100% disability come to Rs.21,16,800/- (117,600/- x 18 x 100%). Head Amount arrived at by the Tribunal Amount arrived at by this Court Loss of future earning on account of disability Rs.14,11,128/- Rs.21,16,800/- Six Month Loss of earnings Rs.42,000/- Rs.42,000/- Pain and Sufferance Rs.5,00,000/- Rs.5,00,000/- Loss of amenities Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,00,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.67,954/- Rs.67,954/- Transportation and other expenses Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Total Rs. 22,31,082/- Rounded off to 22,23,954/- Rs. 29,36,754/- 26. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.ANo.201 of 2020 filed by the claimant is allowed and M.A.C.M.A. No.441 of 2020 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The claimant is entitled for an compensation of Rs. 22,31,082/- Rounded off to 22,23,954/- Rs. 29,36,754/- 26. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.ANo.201 of 2020 filed by the claimant is allowed and M.A.C.M.A. No.441 of 2020 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. The claimant is entitled for an compensation of Rs. 29,36,754/- (Twenty Nine Lakh Thirty Six Thousand and Seven Hundred and Fifty Four Rupees only) with interest at the rate @ 9 % p.a. on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the said amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within two months from receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any surety. However, the claimant is directed to pay the Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed.