THE HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1551 OF 2016
ORDER:
This appeal has been filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), in O.P.No.151 of 2012, dated 17.10.2015.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant claims to have been driving his motor vehicle bearing No.AP 28TP T/R 5538 on the left side of the road, when a Car bearing No.AP 28BC 3699 came with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner's motor vehicle on 27.08.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., and consequently, the petitioner fell down and sustained fracture injury to his left leg, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. Thereafter, the petitioner was admitted in Ramdev Baba Hospital and subsequently, he was shifted to BBR Hospital, where he was treated and he was further admitted in People's Hospital for removal of steel rod from his left leg and he was treated as an out-patient in Tilak Nagar Hospital for further treatment.
2
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
3. The appellant filed O.P.No.151 of 2012 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rule 455 B of A.P. Motor Vehicle Rule 1989 before the Tribunal claiming Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards injuries caused to him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 27.08.2011. The petitioner claimed the compensation under various heads and also claimed 20% as partial permanent disability. But the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.2,93,000/- with interest thereon @ 9% per annum. Thus, seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant submitted that the claimant has sustained 20% of partial permanent disability and has relied upon the evidence of the Doctor who treated the injured/claimant in support of his contention. He has filed a copy of the evidence of the Doctor, wherein the Doctor has stated that the movements of the left knee joint from 0 to 1200 of flexion movements are limited and the disability was assessed at 20% as partial permanent disability and the loss of earning capacity was also assessed at 20%. It was further observed that due to the above disability, the injured cannot stand, sit and squat and he cannot walk for long distances as the injury sustained by the injured is grievous in nature. He therefore, submitted that the Tribunal ought to have 3 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 considered the evidence of the doctor and granted compensation towards 20% partial permanent disability.
5. Learned counsel for the claimant, Sri K. Hari Mohan Reddy, relied upon the following judgments of this Court in support of his contention that the disability certified by the doctor would refer to physical disability and suitable compensation has to be awarded accordingly.
(1) MACMA No.1475 of 2011, dated 08.09.2022. (2) MACMA No.126 & 331 of 2021, dated 13.09.2022.
6. Learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, Sri T. Mahender Rao, however, submitted that the very same Doctor has also given evidence that the injuries sustained by the injured have been healed and the fracture is united. According to him, since the injuries have been healed and the fracture is united, there cannot be any further disability and therefore, compensation towards disability has rightly not been awarded by the Tribunal.
7. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record and also the decisions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that once the doctor has examined the patient and has given a finding that there is 20% partial permanent disability, the same has to be taken into 4 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 consideration by the Tribunal while granting compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. Though the fracture might have healed, the doctor has given an opinion that the injured cannot sit and squat and cannot walk long distances as a result of the injury. This being the situation, the evidence of the doctor that there is a partial permanent disability assumes importance. Since the doctor has rated partial and permanent disability at 20%, this Court deems it fit and proper to award compensation towards loss of future earnings at 20% of the established income. In this case, though the injured claimed monthly income to be at Rs.17,000/-, the Tribunal has not given any finding on the same as no evidence was produced. Remanding the matter to the Tribunal for determination of the monthly income after lapse of so many years would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, it is directed to adopt a reasonable sum of Rs.9,000/- per month (i.e., @ Rs.300/- per day) and re-compute the compensation accordingly. When computed based on the multiplier of 18 according to his age at the time of the accident, the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.3,88,800/- (Rs.9000x12x20%x18).
8. The next ground raised is with regard to the compensation towards loss of future prospects as per the Apex Court judgments. It is submitted that even in the case of 5 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 injuries where the partial permanent disability has been accepted, the suitable compensation ought to have been awarded for loss of future prospects.
9. The learned counsel for the claimant has relied upon the following Judgments in support of the claim of compensation towards disability and loss of future prospects:
(i) P.Vydehi Vs. A.Srinivas & Another1;
(ii) S.Satya Jaya Vs. G.Harshavardhan Reddy and
Another2;
(iii) M.Anjaneyulu Vs. K.V.Rathaiah3;
(iv) P.Benzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara and
Another4;
(v) Syed Nawaz Ali Vs. V.Kondal Rao and Another5;
(vi) V. Anji Reddy Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., and
Another6.
10. This Court finds that the above decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the claimant were decided based on the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme 1 High Court of A.P. in MACMA No.3034 of 2012, dated 29.04.2014. 2 High Court of A.P. in MACMA No.3031 of 2012, dated 29.04.2014. 3 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.2240 of 2012, dated 02.08.2019. 4 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.575 of 2011, dated 19.08.2019. 5 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.2491 of 2012, dated 02.08.2019. 6 High Court of Telangana in MACMA No.162 of 2013 dt.04.09.2019 6 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 Court of India in the case of Jagadish Vs. Mohan and Others7, wherein the factual matrix is that the injured lost his both hands and was unable to perform day to day activities without assistance of an attendant and his disablement was assessed at 90%.
11. In the case of P.Vydehi Vs. A.Srinivas & Another (1 supra), it was held that the injured therein cannot sit and squat, stand and walk for a long time due to mall union of pelvic bone and developed stiffness of right hip, femer and right side knee and therefore, she is unable to discharge her duties effectively and she was held to be suffering from permanent disablement.
12. In the case of S.Satya Jaya Vs. G.Harshavardhan Reddy and Another (2 supra), it was observed that the injured therein sustained seven injuries including grievous injury on the front of wedge compression, fracture of D12 Vertebra, fracture of left leg foot, linear fracture, head of V M.T. Femer and based on these injuries, it was concluded that the injured cannot travel long distances, cannot bend, cannot lift weights and cannot sit continuously for long time and that it is difficult for her to discharge her duties effectively and she was held to be suffering from permanent disablement.
7 (2018) ACJ 1011 (SC) 7 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
13. The injured persons in the cases of M.Anjaneyulu Vs. K.V.Rathaiah (3 supra), P.Benzamen Franklen Vs. S.Eshwara and Another (4 supra), Syed Nawaz Ali Vs. V.Kondal Rao, Another (5 supra) and V. Anji Reddy Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd., and another (6 supra), were certified to be suffering from multiple fracture injuries and were assessed to be suffering from disability. In all these cases, this Hon'ble Court awarded future prospects by relying on the principle enunciated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagadish Vs. Mohan and Others (7 supra).
14. In the case on hand, it is submitted that the petitioner is a tutor and was also working as an Assistant in Sri Ram Chit Fund. The evidence of P.W.2, the doctor, is to the effect that the petitioner had complaints of pain in the left knee joint and fracture 'Tibia' on left side and his movements are restricted. P.W.2 stated that the fracture is united. In view of the evidence of the doctor, this Court finds that the nature of injuries sustained by the injured in the present case do not propose award of compensation towards loss of future prospects inasmuch as these injuries are not of the nature defined under Section 142 of Motor Vehicles Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and 8 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 Another (8 supra). In that view of the matter, no compensation is awarded under the head 'loss of future prospects'.
15. As regards the compensation towards damages to clothing and articles, which is claimed at Rs.2,000/-, this Court is inclined to award the same as it is not in dispute that clothing and articles have been damaged in the accident.
16. As regards the claim of the claimant for compensation towards loss of amenities, marriage prospects, mental agony and social status @ Rs.75,000/-, the learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant was only 22 years of age at the time of the accident and as a result of the accident and consequential 20% partial permanent disability, the petitioner has suffered loss of amenities, marriage prospects, mental agony and social status due to injury caused to his left leg. He relied upon the evidence of that doctor that left leg of the claimant was shortened by ½ cm, due to which there is wastage of muscle on the left side and there is a limp, due to which he was unable to get proper marriage prospects.
17. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company however refuted this argument.
18. Having regard to the evidence of the doctor that there is shortening of left leg by ½ cm and further the claimant has 9 MACMA.No.1551 of 2016 suffered partial permanent disability of being unable to sit and squat and not being able to walk for long distances, this Court is of the opinion that the claimant has suffered loss of amenities and therefore, suitable compensation should be awarded to him. To meet the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit and proper to award a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards the same.
19. As regards the claim of amount of Rs.30,000/- for pain and suffering, this Court finds that the Tribunal has already granted Rs.20,000/- towards the same and therefore, no further enhancement is required for the same. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court, interest is to be awarded at 7.5% per annum instead of 9% per annum.
20. The compensation awarded to the injured/appellant is as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation Awarded
1. Compensation for Rs.60,000/- (awarded by
injuries Tribunal)
2. Extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- (awarded by
Travelling and Tribunal)
Attendant charges
3. Loss of earnings Rs.50,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
4. Pain and Suffering Rs.20,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
5. Implants removal Rs.40,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
10
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
6. Medical Treatment Rs.73,000/- (awarded by
Tribunal)
7. Loss of amenities Rs.50,000/-
8. Damages for Clothing Rs.2,000/-
and articles
9. Loss of future 3,88,800/-
earnings
Total Compensation Rs.7,33,800/- along with
awarded interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of claim petition
to till the date of payment.
21. In the result, the award dated 17.10.2015 in O.P.No.151 of 2012 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.7,33,800/- (Rupees Seven lakhs thirty three thousand and eight hundred only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment against both the respondents jointly and severally. As the compensation payable to the appellant as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of Rs.5,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.2,33,800/- is granted subject to payment of Court fee thereon. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit being made by the respondents, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
11
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
22. The MACMA is accordingly partly allowed without costs.
23. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this MACMA shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 22.12.2022
bak
12
MACMA.No.1551 of 2016
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI M.A.C.M.A.No. 1551 OF 2016 Date: 22.12.2022 bak