THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 1505 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the Court below, assailing the order and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge at Nalgonda (for short, 'the tribunal') passed in O.P.No. 986 of 2008, dated 18.01.2016.
Vide aforesaid order, as against the claim of Rs.2.00 lakhs, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,86,000/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant against the respondents herein who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing No. AP 24X 0975, jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of the amount for the injuries received by him in a road accident that occurred on 07.08.2008.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that in order to establish the fact that on account of the injuries suffered by the appellant, he had suffered permanent disability at 25%, Ex.A.7, disability 2 certificate, issued by the District Medical Board, Nalgonda, was produced and the same was substantiated with the evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, who is also a member of District Medical Board, who categorically deposed that the claimant sustained 25% disability, which is permanent in nature. However, the tribunal without there being any valid reason brushed aside the said evidence and did not award the compensation under the head of disability. It is contended that the claimant was 19 years old at the time of accident and that he used to earn Rs.5,000/- by giving private tuitions and in the absence of any contra evidence, the tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,000/- which is too meager and needs enhancement. It is contended that the claimant had suffered two fracture injuries apart from multiple injuries and he had incurred Rs.2,87,223/- towards treatment, medicines and investigations and to substantiate the same the claimant had produced Ex.A.6, bunch of original bills, but however, the tribunal has awarded only Rs.90,000/-. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to award just and reasonable compensation under the head of disability, duly taking into account the reasonable monthly income of the appellant and applying multiplier '18' considering his age apart from granting the amount covered by Ex.A6.
The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 sought to sustain the impugned award 3 contending that since no billing manager was examined in connection with Ex.A.6, the tribunal rightly rejected the claim under Ex.A.6. As regards the disability, the learned Standing Counsel has fairly submitted that taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A.7, disability certificate, reasonable amount can be awarded under the head of permanent disability.
The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the offending vehicle.
As regards the quantum of compensation, it is the claim of the appellant that he used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month by giving private tuitions apart from doing real estate business. However, considering the age of the claimant, the tribunal has disbelieved the said version. But, considering the prevailing rate of minimum wages at the relevant point of time, this Court is of the view that fixation of monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,000/- by the tribunal is not justified. Therefore, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-.
As regards the disability, as seen from the medical record, the claimant had sustained one compound Grade-III B comminuted fracture of right Patella and one fracture of Right knee apart from multiple injuries. In support of the claim of disability, the claimant has filed Ex.A.7, disability certificate 4 issued by the District Medical Board, Nalgonda which has also been substantiated with the evidence of P.W.2, Member of District Medical Board, who has deposed that the claimant has sustained 25% permanent disability. Thus, when the competent authority has certified the claimant to have sustained 25% permanent disability, there is no reason for the tribunal to disbelieve the same. Hence, this court is inclined to fix the permanent disability sustained by the claimant at 25%. Since the claimant was 19 years by the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Hence, under the head of loss of income due to disability, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- (Rs.4,500 x 12 x 18 x 25/100). That apart, since the claimant has asserted that he had incurred Rs.2,87,223/- towards treatment, medicines and investigations, merely because the billing manager is not examined, the entire claim cannot be rejected more particulary, when the claimant has suffered two fracture injuries apart from other injuries. Therefore, basing on Ex.A.6 and considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court is inclined to award a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment, medicines and investigations. That apart, considering the fact that the claimant had suffered two fracture injuries, this Court awards a sum of Rs.40,000/- under the head of injuries. The amounts of Rs.25,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.9,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.5,000/- towards transportation; 5 and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment awarded by the tribunal are not interfered with. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,25,000/-.
In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. stands allowed enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.1,86,000/- to Rs.5,25,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the order passed by the tribunal till the date of realization. The amount shall be deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the said amount. However, the claimant shall pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 13.12.2022 tsr 6 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 1505 of 2019 DATE: 13-12-2022