HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
M.A.C.M.A. No.58 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the APSRTC/respondents against the decree and award dt.30.06.2012 passed in MVOP.No.2222 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XIV Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Hyderabad.
2. The claim petition is filed by one B. Sarla / petitioner under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident occurred on 02.09.2012.
3. The claimant's case in brief is that, on 02.09.2012 while herself and her husband were proceeding on a motor-cycle bearing registration No.AP-09-8135 (the motor cycle) to Erragadda and when they reached Alkapuri 'X' Roads, one APSRTC bus bearing registration No.AP-11-Z-7543 (the bus) driven by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and struck their motor-cycle, as a result, she slumped and sustained injuries to left foot and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, she was shifted to Indus Hospital and undergone treatment till 13.09.2012 by incurring medical expenditure, however continued to suffer physical disability. Hence, filed the claim petition for compensation.
NTR,J
::2:: macma_58_2016
4. The Tribunal, after considering the material on record, granted compensation amount of Rs.5,59,900/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. by holding both the respondents jointly and severally liable.
5. Aggrieved by the fastened liability and the quantum of award, the APSRTC / respondents preferred the present Appeal on the following grounds :
(i) that the Tribunal erroneously held that the driver of the bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner;
(ii) that the Tribunal ought to have considered the negligence on the part of the injured / pillion rider / petitioner in the accident and the insurer of the motor- cycle ought to have been made as party;
(iii) that the Tribunal should not have believed the version of PW.1 without any corroborating and independent evidence.
(iv) while assessing compensation, the Tribunal erred in taking disability @ 42%, and monthly income at Rs.3,500/- p.m. and erred in considering the future prospects; and
(v) the Tribunal should not have granted amounts towards medical treatment as the bills are not properly found, and the compensation awarded is highly excessive.
NTR,J
::3:: macma_58_2016
6. The respondent / petitioner submitted that though there is material for her entitlement for more compensation, no appeal is preferred by her and the compensation amount awarded by the Trial Court is reasonable.
Even otherwise, the appellant / respondent failed to place any evidence to show any negligence on her part and the Tribunal, as such, properly arrived at conclusions basing on the material. Hence, there are no grounds for interference and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the light of rival pleadings, the point arises for determination is,
(a) whether the accident resulted in the injuries to respondent / petitioner is due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the APSRTC bus ? and
(b) whether the awarded compensation is excessive?. Point (a) :
8. The petitioner, as P.W.1, testified the manner of accident as pleaded in the petition, though in the cross-examination no fact is elicited by the appellant / respondent to consider any negligence at least to infer any negligence on the part of respondent / claimant. Further, the version given by the petitioner is supported by the statement in FIR / Ex.A.1 and the Charge-Sheet / Ex.A.2 is disclosing that the investigation of the police is concluded against the driver of the APSRTC. Therefore, in the absence of any material supporting the contention of the appellant / respondent, it shall be held that the respondent / petitioner established the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus in NTR,J ::4:: macma_58_2016 causing the accident. To add, the entry in Medico-Legal Report / Ex.A.3 discloses that the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident. On this account, no impropriety is found in the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal on this point. As the rash and negligent driving of the bus is concluded, the insurer of motor-cycle need not be a necessary party, as such, non-inclusion of insurer of the motor-cycle is nowhere effective, and the claim petition in no way helps the case of appellant / respondent.
9. It is well settled that the quality of evidence is crucial than the quantity. When the material placed is clinchingly establishing the accident, examining any independent witness for corroboration is not essential. Therefore, the contentions raised by the appellant on this aspect fails on merit and the conclusion of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus deserves to be confirmed.
Point (b) :
10. The respondent / petitioner claimed age as 37 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal by considering the entries in Medico-Legal Report - Ex.A.3 accepted the age of appellant / petitioner as 37 years. As there is no other material to consider otherwise, the age of appellant / petitioner can be taken as 37 years by the date of accident.
11. With regard to the monthly income of the appellant / petitioner, the Tribunal quantified the services of appellant / petitioner as home-
NTR,J ::5:: macma_58_2016 maker at Rs.3,500/- p.m. This amount is found reasonable even when the amount is compared to the wages of manual labour.
12. The Tribunal has taken 42% as the disability by considering the Disability Certificate / Ex.A.8 wherein the disability of the respondent / petitioner is rated at 42%. Considering the home-making vocation of the appellant / petitioner as the occupation in the permanent nature of disability, and it is common knowledge that a home-maker / house-wife requires mobility and the activity may go round the clock. The permanent nature of disability of the lower limb certainly affects the capabilities, as such, no impropriety is found in considering the physical disability affecting the capability of working as home-maker at 42%. Further, the appellant / respondent has not forwarded any factor to otherwise quantify disability. Hence, the conclusions of the Tribunal as to the disability can be accepted.
13. The services of house-wife can be graded as personal self- employment. As per the decision in Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar and ors.1, future prospects of income as enunciated in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and ors.2, shall be applicable in cases of assessment of loss of future earnings due to permanent disability. Accordingly, for the aged below 40 years, future prospects of 40% of future monthly earnings of the injured shall be added in computing the loss of future earnings due to disability. But, the 1 Civil Appeal No.2567 of 2020, dt.17.09.2020 2 (2017) 16 SCC 860 NTR,J ::6:: macma_58_2016 Tribunal has taken 50% of the income towards future prospects, as such the percentage of future prospects shall be modified to 40% in terms of the settled legal position. Thus, the annual income of the respondent / petitioner including the future prospects of income would be Rs.58,800/- (Rs.3,500/- x 12 = Rs.42,000/- + Rs.16,8800/- (40% of Rs.42,000).
14. Therefore, the loss of earnings due to disability of 42% would be Rs.24,696/- (42% of Rs.58,800/-). This amount is rounded off to Rs.24,700/-. As per the authority of Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corp. and another3, the relevant multiplier to the age of 37 is '15'. If the arrived values are multiplied, the total comes to Rs.3,70,500/- (Rs.24,700 x 15) and this amount shall be awarded towards loss of future income due to disability.
15. Further, in the light of the material on record, granting amounts under heads of 'medical expenses', 'extra nourishment', 'transportation', 'general damages' and 'pain and sufferings' found quite reasonable, and no valid point is made out by the appellant / petitioner to interfere with these points.
16. Accordingly, the compensation awarded under different heads except modifying the percentage of future prospects at 40% in evaluating the loss of future earnings due to disability, are confirmed.
17. In view of the above discussion and after modification of future prospects at 40%, the amount of compensation to the injured is modified 3 ACJ 2013 Page 1409 NTR,J ::7:: macma_58_2016 from Rs.5,59,900/- to Rs.5,48,500/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit / realization and the appellants / respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the same and they are directed to deposit the amount within one month from the date of this order.
18. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any in this Appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 18.11.2021 Ndr