HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1619 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
The injured claimant, aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2004, filed the present appeal.
2. Heard Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, and Mr. K. Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
3. The appellant/claimant filed the above mentioned original petition claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 19.05.2003. In the original petition, it is averred that while the claimant and others were travelling in an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 16TT 0510 from Chiluvuru to Vijayawada, the driver of a tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP 7K 8223 and AP 7K 8224 drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and hit the auto-rickshaw from opposite direction near Kunchanapally cross road on N.H.5 Bypass Road, Tadepalli Mandal, Guntur District, as a result of the said accident, the claimant sustained severe injuries including compound and commuted fracture of both bones of right hand below the elbow and compound fracture of right hand above elbow and multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant, 2 NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006 in support of his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2 and also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.X.1 to X.3.
4. The 1st respondent i.e., the owner of the tractor and trailer remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its written statement and contested the matter. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the material on record, awarded a sum of Rs.66,400/- in all, against the total claim of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition, till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and though an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed, the appellant is entitled to more compensation than the amount claimed in the original petition as the earning capacity of the appellant was severely affected in view of the nature of the injuries, surgery and insertion of rod. He further submits that though the percentage of disability was assessed at 40% by P.W.2- Doctor, who worked as a Professor in Orthopedic Wing, the Claims Tribunal failed to take the same into account while arriving at the amount 3 NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006 of compensation. He also submits that the appellant is entitled to the amounts under different heads i.e., pain and suffering, loss of expectation of life, attendant charges and extra nourishment, in the light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343, and further the benefit of addition of 40% income towards future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680. The learned counsel also submits that the interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e., 6% p.a. is very less. Contending so, the learned counsel would urge that the amount of compensation may be determined and just and reasonable compensation may be awarded.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that the Claims Tribunal has taken into account all the relevant factors while arriving at the compensation payable to the claimant, the award is well reasoned and therefore, warrants no interference by this Court.
8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the learned counsel and perused the material on record.
9. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant with regard to enhancement of compensation, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by the claimant as a result of the said accident are not in dispute and no 4 NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006 appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company questioning its liability to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the 1st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer. Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal had taken the daily income of the appellant at Rs.50/-. The accident occurred in the year 2003. The daily income of the claimant as fixed by the Claims Tribunal at Rs.50/-, in the opinion of this Court, is not just and reasonable. Its finding is that the claimant failed to prove that he was earning Rs.100/- per day as a Masala Vender is not just or tenable, since he is not expected to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate the income derived from the business as Masala Vender. Even assuming, the minimum wage during the relevant period was not less than Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, for the purpose of arriving at the compensation, the daily income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.100/-, which, according to the considered opinion of this Court, is neither exorbitant nor unreasonable.
10. The loss of future earnings is accordingly arrived at as follows: Monthly income (Rs.100/- per day x 30 days) Rs.3,000/- + 40% of the income towards future prospects Rs.1,200/-
-------------
Total Rs.4,200/-
--------------
Annual income (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18) Rs.3,62,800/-
(by taking the multiplier of '18' for the
age group of 23 years and disability @ 40%)
Loss of earning during the period of treatment Rs.10,800/-
5
NJS,J
MACMA No.1619 of 2006
(108 days as adopted by the Tribunal)
(108 x Rs.100/- per day)
Pain and suffering Rs.21,000/-
(Rs.20,000/- for grievous injuries
and Rs.1,000/- for a simple injury)
Medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
Loss of amenities in life Rs.20,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.5,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/-
----------------
Total compensation Rs.4,34,600/-
-----------------
11. Though the appellant claimed Rs.1,50,000/- towards
compensation, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2019 (2) SCC 192, just and reasonable compensation can be awarded. However, the appellant shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation is enhanced from Rs.66,400/- to Rs.4,34,600/- and interest is awarded @ 7.5% p.a., as 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is meager. The Insurance Company shall deposit the enhanced amount together with interest from the date of petition till the date of realization within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. 6
NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006
13. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal shall stand closed.
_______________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 2nd December, 2021 cbs 7 NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA M.A.C.M.A.No. 1619 of 2006 2nd December, 2021 cbs