HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.637 of 2018
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the order dated 21.08.2017, in MVOP.No.81 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the OP.
3. The appeal is filed by the RTC. The O.P. is filed by the claimant before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 19.10.2013.
4. On the date of accident at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-22-AM-1698 and when he reached the limits of Obulapalli village, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-793 driven by its driver at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, as a result, 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018 the claimant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries and fracture to his leg. He was immediately shifted to SVS hospital, Mahbubnagar and from there to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad, where, he was treated as in-patient from 20.10.2013 to 09.11.2013.
5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant was entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,54,046/-. Being aggrieved by the said order, the RTC has preferred this appeal.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. The appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, and therefore, the appreciation would be only with respect to the said aspect.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-RTC that the Tribunal, without considering the law laid down by the Apex Court, have granted compensation under different heads on 3 GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018 the higher side, and therefore, prayed to grant appropriate compensation to the claimant.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on record, have granted proper amounts under appropriate heads and prayed to confirm the orders of the Tribunal.
10. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner in which the accident had occurred. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and PWs.3 to 5 are the Doctors, who treated the claimant and issued disability certificate. The Tribunal have come to a conclusion that the claimant has lost his earnings for a period of three years and has taken the loss of income @ Rs.10,000/- per month and granted Rs.3,60,000/- (Rs.10,000 X 36) under the said head.
11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads:
4
GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018
1. Loss of income Rs.3,60,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.97,546/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.3,00,000/-
4. Attendant & Extra-nourishment Rs.30,000/-
5. Pain and suffering Rs.1,00,000/-
6. Transportation charges Rs.66,500/-
TOTAL Rs.9,54,046/-
12. On perusal of the documentary evidence, it is evident that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Exs.A-7 and A-8 disclose that the claimant underwent treatment as in-patient for 19 days and also underwent treatment in the year 2014 for another 10 days. But, the Tribunal has granted loss of income for a period of three years merely basing on the oral evidence of the claimant. It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A-9 is the original disability certificate issued by PW-5, a Civil Surgeon of Government Hospital and the disability is assessed to 60% to the right lower limb of the claimant.
13. It is the specific contention of the counsel for the appellant/RTC that as the disability certificate on record, the tribunal ought to have granted compensation taking into consideration the disability sustained by the claimant, instead of 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018 granting amounts, towards loss of earnings for a period of three years and also for loss of amenities, even in the absence of proper corroborating or documentary evidence. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the claimant is also disputed as there is no pleading before the Court either in the claim petition or in the criminal complaint/report that the claimant was working in the Company of PW-2, and therefore, prayed to fix appropriate monthly income of the claimant as an Electrician.
14. Ex.A-11 is the salary certificate issued by PW-2, which disclose that the claimant worked as an Electrician in VSES India Pvt. Limited prior to the accident and was drawing a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. Even assuming for a moment that the loss of earnings of the claimant is for three years, as the disability certificate i.e. Ex.A-9 disclose that the claimant sustained 60% of disability, then the loss of earnings would be Rs.2,16,000/- (Taking the salary of claimant as Rs.10,000/-, 60% would come to Rs.6,000/-. Thus, Rs.6,000/- x 36 months = Rs.2,16,000/-). Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,16,000/- only, towards 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018 loss of earnings. Admittedly, no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal while granting compensation under different heads.
15. As stated supra, the claimant was treated as in-patient in the hospital for 29 days. Even in the absence of proper evidence as to the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,00,000/-, which is on higher side. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- can be granted towards loss of amenities, considering the fact that the claimant undergone treatment as in-patient for 29 days. The Tribunal have also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is also on higher side. No doubt the claimant underwent pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by him in the accident and as his right leg was deformed, a sum of Rs.75,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering.
16. As far as the other amounts granted by the Tribunal are concerned, the same need not be interfered with, as they are not on higher side and the medical expenses granted to the claimant are based on the documentary evidence.
7
GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018
17. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of earnings Rs.2,16,000/-
2. Medical Expenses Rs.97,546/-
3. Loss of amenities Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Attendant & Extra-nourishment Rs.30,000/-
5. Pain and suffering Rs.75,000/-
6. Transportation charges Rs.66,500/-
TOTAL Rs.5,85,046/-
18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the claimant/respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.5,85,046/- only, payable by the appellant within two months from the date of receipt of this order and the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount as the accident occurred in the year 2013.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 24.08.2022 ajr