HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2010
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1050 of 2008, dated 16.06.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XVIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred on 17.03.2008. The said accident occurred at about 10.30 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding to Ganpur on his cycle and when he reached Ellammagudi, the Lorry bearing No.AP-28-U-9717 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the cycle of the claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture injuries on both his legs, head, forehead, pelvic fracture, laceration on stomach 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010 and other grievous injuries all over the body and was shifted to Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad.
4. Basing on the complaint given by the claimant, a case was registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.110 of 2008 on the file of Patancheru Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 338 of IPC. It is the specific averment in the claim petition that the claimant was hale and healthy and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing idli business and was contributing the same to the family. Further, he spent huge amounts towards his medical expenses and sustained permanent disability and prayed to enhance the compensation.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents disputing the manner of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant and also about the liability of the Insurance Company.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,82,000/-. 3
GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
9. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that initially, claim was made for Rs.5,00,000/-, but I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed for amending the claim, which was ordered by this Court by enhancing the claim from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has erred in considering the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded only Rs.1,00,000/- as lumpsum towards compensation for disability and therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation
10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal by confirming the orders of the Tribunal.
4
GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010
11. There is no dispute as to the manner in which the accident had occurred. It is the specific contention of the claimant that he was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing idli business and due to the accident, he sustained grievous injuries and had 100% of permanent disability as his both legs were fractured. Admittedly, there is no oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal to prove that the claimant is doing idli business and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, except his sole testimony. Ex.A-9 is not the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, but it is issued by one Dr.B.Ramakrishna i.e. PW-2. It is the specific evidence of PW-2 that he examined the claimant on 09.11.2009 clinically and radiologically and found fracture of the shaft femur right and left and nailing was done. Further, left femur was grossly infected and movements are restricted. The accident occurred on 17.03.2008 and after a span of one and half years, the certificate was issued by PW-2, who has not treated him. The evidence of PW-2 further discloses that he cannot say as to how the infection had occurred to the femur. Therefore, Ex.A-9 cannot be given much weightage but 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010 taking into consideration the oral evidence of PW-2, this Court is of the considered view that the disability of the appellant can be taken as 50%.
12. The Tribunal has granted the following amounts under various heads:
1. Pain and suffering - Rs.20,000/-
2. Medical expenses - Rs.30,000/-
3. Extra-nourishment - Rs.10,000/-
4. Transportation - Rs.10,000/-
5. Loss of earnings
during the treatment - Rs.12,000/-
6. Partial disability - Rs.1,00,000/-
TOTAL - Rs.1,82,000/-
13. As stated supra, there is no proof for the income of the claimant. The oral evidence of PW-1/injured discloses that he was doing idli business. The accident occurred in the year 2008. Taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., the notional income of the claimant is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). As stated supra, even in 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010 the absence of proper disability certificate, this Court has considered the disability of the claimant as 50%. The appellant was aged 27 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years. Therefore, the claimant/injured is entitled for an amount of Rs.6,42,600/- towards loss of future income (Rs.6,300 X 12 X 17 X 50/100). Further, the claimant is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment.
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the following heads;
1. Loss of future income - Rs.6,42,600/-
2. Pain and suffering - Rs.50,000/-
3. Medical expenses - Rs.30,000/-
4. Extra-nourishment - Rs.10,000/-
5. Transportation - Rs.10,000/-
6. Attendant charges - Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL - Rs.7,52,600/-
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,82,000/- 7
GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010 to Rs.7,52,600/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the accident occurred in the year 2008, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount, after duly paying the deficit Court fee, if any.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 05.12.2022 ajr