THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3050 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Assailing the order and decree, dated 31.05.2014 made in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal {III Additional District Judge (FTC)}, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the claimants filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties shall be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that initially the 1st petitioner (since died) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 08.04.2005. It is stated that on 08.04.2005 at about 6:00 a.m., while the 1st petitioner was standing by the side of the road, a Lorry 2 MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 bearing No.HR 55 4206, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed him and the front wheel of the lorry ran over him. As a result, the left leg of the 1st petitioner was crushed. Immediately after the accident, the 1st petitioner was shifted to Heera Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where his left leg was amputated above the ankle and he incurred an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs for his treatment. Therefore, the 1st petitioner filed the claim-petition. During pendency of the claim-petition, the 1st petitioner died and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives, vide order, dated 11.08.2009 in I.A.No.781 of 2009.
4. Considering the claim and counter filed by respondent No.2 and also the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, the tribunal allowed the O.P. awarding a sum of Rs.30,675/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid by the respondent. 3
MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 Challenging the same, the claimants filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.
5. Heard both sides and perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence of P.W.4, the doctor, who treated the 1st petitioner. The Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the 1st petitioner had sustained crush injury to his left leg and his left leg was amputated above the ankle. It is further submitted that though the appellants claimed that the 1st petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working as barber, the Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a meager compensation of Rs.30,675/-.
7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs 4 MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that no record is available to show that the death of the 1st petitioner was caused as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is "whether the appellants, who are the legal representative of the 1st petitioner/injured, are entitled for enhancement of compensation?"
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final since the same was not challenged by either of the respondents.
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, a perusal of the material on record would show that P.W.4, the doctor, who treated the 1st petitioner, deposed that the left leg of the 1st petitioner was amputated above the ankle. As the 1st claimant died during pendency of the claim-petition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- 5
MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 towards expenditure incurred for his treatment and Rs.10,675/- towards medical bills.
11. In The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased)1, the Apex Court in paragraph Nos.18 and 20 observed as under:-
"18. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.
20. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased."1
2021 AIR (SC) 3913 6 MGP, J Macma_3050_2014
12. In the instant case also, the left leg of the 1st petitioner was amputated above the ankle. Though the record also discloses that the 1st petitioner had taken treatment as inpatient from 08.04.2005 to 17.05.2005 and medical bills for Rs.10,675/- were produced by the petitioners, no amount was awarded by the Tribunal under the head of transportation, extra diet, attendant charges and also the treatment charges and doctor's fee. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court referred to above, loss of estate includes expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. has to be awarded. In view of the amputation of left leg above ankle and also the treatment taken by the 1st petitioner and the medical expenses spent by him, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of estate i.e. expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.30,675/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum 7 MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 from the date of petition till the date of realization. Out of the said amount, petitioner No.2 is entitled to Rs.50,000/- and petitioner Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to Rs.25,000/- each. Time to deposit the entire compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, petitioner Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 27.12.2022 tsr 8 MGP, J Macma_3050_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.3050 of 2014 DATE: 27-12-2022