HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.1497 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 20.10.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1614 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. The facts, in issue, are as under:
The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 11.05.2012. According to the appellant, on 11.05.2012, while he was proceeding on a motorcycle to Kuthukuluru village and when he reached the railway station of Kadiyam Mandal, the offending vehicle i.e., Lorry (Tipper) bearing No.AP 37 V 6737, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, 2 came from Anaparthy side towards Rajahmundry, dashed the motorcycle in the process of overtaking another vehicle. As a result, the appellant fell down and sustained several fracture injuries and his left leg was amputated above knee level on 11.05.2012 at Government Hospital, Kadiyam. It is further stated that prior to the accident, the appellant was hale and healthy and was working as driver in Kaveri Travels and earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from Rs.200/- per day as batta and due to amputation of his left leg above the knee, he suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents, seeking compensation.
3. After considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
3
5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same as he suffered 85% permanent disability due to amputation of his left leg above the knee, the Tribunal ought to have taken the functional disability at 100% taking into consideration the profession of the deceased as driver. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded interest at 7.5% per annum instead of Rs.6% per annum. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation duly taking the functional disability at 100%. It is further contended that though the claim- petition pertains to case of injury, the Tribunal has erroneously deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference.
7. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the 4 same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
8. The short question that arises for consideration is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
9. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A5, disability certificate, issued by the Area Hospital, Vanasthalipuram. P.W.2, the doctor, had deposed in his evidence that the appellant was suffering with permanent disability at 85% as his left leg was amputated above the knee and he issued Ex.A5-disability certificate. As seen from Ex.A7, driving licence, the profession of the appellant itself is driver and due to the amputation of left leg above the knee, he cannot continue the profession of driver. Therefore, the functional disability can be taken at 100%.
10. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another1 the Apex Court held as under:-
1
MACD 2011 (SC) 33 5 "20. In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses."
11. As the claim-petition itself is filed seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the appellant, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj Kumar (supra), the Tribunal ought not to have deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses.
12. As regard the income of the appellant, considering Ex.A7, driving licence, since the appellant was skilled person, the Tribunal has rightly taken his monthly income at Rs.9,000/-. As the age of the appellant at the time of accident was between 36-40 years, the appropriate multiplier in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation2, is '15'. Therefore, adopting the said multiplier the loss of earnings on account of the disability comes to Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.16,20,000/-. Further, the amount awarded for injuries i.e., Rs.50,000/- and under the heads of transportation and attendance 2 2009 ACJ 1298 6 charges i.e., Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- awarded for purchase of artificial limb are not disturbed. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,20,000/- as compensation.
13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the appellant claimed only a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
14. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4, the appellant is entitled to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount what was claimed by the claimant.
15. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the 3 (2011) 10 SCC 756 4 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7 Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others5.
16. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs. 19,20,000/- . The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. However, the appellant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 27.12.2022 tsr 5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 8 HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No.1497 of 2015 DATE: -12-2022