THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
M.A.C.M.A. No.520 OF 2006
ORDER:
The injured/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.1204 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Court, Guntur filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant/injured filed the above said O.P., against the respondents seeking an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 30.8.2001. In support of his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. He got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X1 case sheet. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company filed counter and contested the matter. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. The Tribunal, after framing the relevant issues and considering the material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent's driver. The Tribunal while taking the income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and taking the disability at 50% and applicable multiplier of '16' arrived at the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as Rs.64,000/- (Rs.8,000 X 16 X 50/100). In addition to the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant 2 charges and special diet. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.79,000/- towards compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal.
3. Heard Mr.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate representing Mr.N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the annual income as Rs.12,000/- and also in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses as if it is a case of death. He submits that the Tribunal should have taken the monthly income of the appellant/injured at Rs.3,000/- and places reliance on the decision reported in Jakkampudi Krishna Venkata Satyanarayana vs. Guttula Rama Mohan Rao1. While relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, the learned counsel submits that the appellant aged about 35 years is entitled to 40% of the salary towards future prospects and thus the amount of loss of dependency would work out to Rs.4,03,200/-. He further submits that the appellant is also entitled to further compensation towards special diet, attendant charges, trauma separately. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar3, he also submits that due to the accident, four limbs of the appellant were affected and therefore the appellant is entitled to reasonable amounts towards future medical expenses, loss of expectation of 1 2015 (1) AnWR 366 (AP) 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343 3 life etc. He further submits that though the appellant sought less amount towards compensation, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdial Singh4 and Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.5, the Court is empowered to grant just and reasonable compensation.
4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel with reference to the material on record and the judgments referred to supra. In so far as the contention regarding the income of the appellant is concerned, though the learned counsel submits that it should be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal after referring to the evidence of the appellant/claimant that he is earning Rs.50 per day and used to work for 23 days in a month, took the income as Rs.1,200/- per month. Therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the monthly income of the appellant. However, the Tribunal committed an error in calculating the annual income as Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.14,400/- and also in deducting 1/3rd from Rs.12,000/- towards personal expenses which is not sustainable. There is no dispute with regard to the multiplier applied and the percentage of disability. Further, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, the appellant is entitled to 40% of the income towards future prospects. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,61,280/- (Rs.1,200 + 480 X 12 X16 X 50/100) towards loss of earning capacity. 4 (2003) 2 SCC 274 5 (2019) 2 SCC 192 4
5. Though the Tribunal observed that two injuries are grievous in nature, an amount of Rs.10,000/- only was awarded and no amounts were granted for the other two injuries which is not just or tenable. Accordingly, the said amount is enhanced to Rs.25,000/- and awarded under the head pain and suffering. Considering the nature of injuries and also disability at 50%, the Tribunal while observing that no medical bills were produced, awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, special diet and medical expenses. However, in view of the evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2 to the effect that the appellant is having partial and permanent disability and he cannot do any work and cannot walk without support, this Court deems it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges and special diet in addition to Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the said head.
6. With regard to compensation for loss of expectation of life, future medical expenses, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar case. As noted from the order of the Tribunal, a finding was recorded that the appellant is having 50% partial permanent disability as his four limbs are affected. Considering the age of the appellant and the impact of the accident on the appellant's life, this Court is of the opinion that he is entitled to reasonable compensation under the head loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and also towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted under the said heads. Thus, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.3,11,280/- in all. Though the 5 original claim is for Rs.2,50,000/-, the above mentioned compensation, which is just and reasonable, is fixed in terms of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa, Ramla etc. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the amount as enhanced, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The appellant, on such deposit, is entitled to withdraw the same. The appellant shall pay the court fee in respect of the amounts awarded over and above the compensation claimed, within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J May 06, 2021.
vasu