E.Srikanth Reddy v. M.Sridhar Kumar

SMT JUSTI CE T. RAJANI MACMA.No.3 2 0 9 of 2 0 1 2 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the Court below, assailing the judgment of the IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on the grounds that the Court below did not accept the disability, which was stated by P.W.2, considering that no disability certificate was issued by Medical Board, which is totally against the established principles; the Court below did not assess the income of the claimant, who is a B.Tech student and the Court below ought to have taken the income of the claimant by considering the said fact and it ought to have taken Rs.12,000/ - per month as the income of the claimant. 2.

Heard both sides.

3.

The claimant, in this case, sustained two fracture injuries to his right leg one to the tibia and right hip joint fracture dislocation. He got examined P.W.2, who spoke about the injuries, treatment and the disability. P.W.2, speaking about the disability, stated that disability is to an extent of 25 - 30% due to which the claimant cannot sit and squat. The Court below, considering that the certificate from the Medical Board is not produced, was not inclined to accept the said evidence.

4.

The counsel for the claimant now relies on a decision of the Supreme Court in GOLLA RAJANNA v . DI VSI ONAL MANAGER, UNI TED I NDI A I NSURANCE CO. LTD.1 wherein the Supreme Court 1 2017 ACJ 1

held that a certificate from a qualified medical practitioner would suffice in order to prove disability.

5.

In this case, there is no dispute that P.W.2 is a qualified medical practitioner. Hence, the finding of the Court below that no reliance can be placed on the disability certificate cannot be sustained.

The disability as stated by P.W.2, is 25 - 30% . As he is not certain on the extent of disability, 25% can be taken as the disability. The claimant is stated to be a B.Tech student, who completed his first year. In order to arrive at the future income of the claimant, the counsel for the claimant relied upon a decision of this Court in CHEKKALA NARAYANA RAO v. GRANDHI ATCHUTARAMA RAO2 wherein for a student of B.Tech, the income was directed to be taken as Rs.12,000/ - per month and a deduction of 10% is allowed to be made for each year. Hence, as the claimant, in this case, has completed first year, 30% can be taken as the deduction and then, the monthly income of the claimant would come to Rs.12,000/ - - (Rs.12,000/ - x 30% = Rs.3,600) = Rs.8,400/ -. The disability of 20% would result in loss of Rs.2,100/ - per month and Rs.

25,200/ - per annum. The age of the claimant being 19 years, the appropriate multiplier as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v . DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATI ON 3 is '18'. Hence, the loss of future income to the claimant due to disability would come to Rs.25,200/ - x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/ -. There is no quarrel with regard to other aspects, which are decided by the Court below. Hence, in all, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.4,53,600/ -.

7.

Hence, the award of the Court below is modified as indicated above with proportionate costs. The award shall relate back to the date of decree and the compensation awarded shall carry the interest at the rate and from the date specified by the Court below. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. __________ T. RAJANI, J July 6, 2018 DSK