HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2747 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, in M.V.O.P. No.985 of 2011, dated 13.03.2013, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Graduate, aged 26 years, appeared I-CET entrance examination and got good rank. He is working as an Operator in offset Printing Press and Binding Works under the name and style of Rainbow Offset Printers, Hanamkonda with a monthly salary of Rs.8,500/-. On 15.06.2010 he was traveling in the auto bearing No. AP 09 W 8604 and when he reached in front of kakatiya Medical College, Warangal at 6-10 a.m., the driver of the auto drove it in rash and negligent manner with high speed and lost control over the auto and dashed against the road divider, as a result of which, the auto overturned on the road. Due to which, the petitioner sustained injuries to head, brain, fracture to both 2 bones of right leg, injury of lower lip and another passenger in that auto died. Immediately he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he was treated as inpatient from 15.6.2010, operation was done to his head and right leg on 18.8.2010 and inserted steel plates to the leg and he was discharged on 30.8.2010 with an advise to consult Ophthalmologist as he lost his vision on both eyes. He incurred Rs.40,000/- towards his medical expenses and extra nourishment. The Doctor of Regional Eye Hospital opined that the petitioner suffered Optic Atrophy of both eyes and he sustained permanent disability. Due to surgery and insertion of steel rods and plates, he is unable to walk without support of stick and due to lip injury, his face was disfigured and unable to continue his profession. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- under various heads against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him. It is further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and prays to dismiss the petition. 3
4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident dt. 15.6.2010 at about 6-10 a.m. in front of K.M.C., Warangal, was caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto bearing No. AP 09 W 8604 and in such accident, petitioner K.Chiranjeevi sustained injuries?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- and if not for how much amount the petitioner is entitled for compensation and against which respondent?
3. To what relief?
5. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and X1 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of respondent No.3, no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1 got marked.
6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.11,40,000/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant along with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. 4
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.X1, established the fact that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries received by him in the accident, the Tribunal awarded very meager amount under various heads.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of second respondent-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the manner of accident and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. With regard to the manner of accident, after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence available on 5 record, the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto.
11. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioner, he sustained injuries to his head, brain, fracture to both bones of right leg, injury of lower lip. Immediately he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he was treated as inpatient from 15.6.2010, operation was done to his head and right leg on 18.8.2010 and inserted steel plates to the leg and was discharged on 30.8.2010 with an advise to consult Ophthalmologist as he lost his vision on both eyes. He incurred Rs.40,000/- towards his medical expenses. In support of his contention, PWs.2 and 3, who are the Orthopedic Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon respectively were examined. PW-2 deposed that on 15.6.2010 he examined PW-1 in MGM Hospital and found 1) head injury, 2) fracture of both bones of right leg and operation was done for fracture of right leg and intra modularly rods and scraps were fixed and he was discharged from the hospital on 30.8.2010 with an advise to take follow up treatment. PW-3 Neuro Surgeon deposed that CT Scan of head and brain of the petitioner showed right parieattin subdural hemorrhage and the patient was treated conservatively and the MRI of brain on 20.7.2010 showed 6 hydrocephalus for which surgery was done on 28.7.2010 and the injury was in grievous injury. Further he deposed that the patient complained of burning vision and unable to move eyeballs and as such, he was referred to Ophthalmologist, who opined that he is suffering from Optic Atrophy with third cranial nerve parisis and that the patient was treated as high risk case. He also deposed that burning of vision due to Optic nerve atrophy may be due to head injury. Thus, from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is clearly established that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury, for which the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- for simple injury.
12. Coming to the disability sustained by the petitioner, PW-4 Assistant Professor in Regional Eye Hospital/MGM Hospital deposed that the patient was referred from Neuro Surgeon Department and that she opined that both eyes having optic atrophy and his pupils were middilated and were not reacting to light and that the right eye vision was perception of light present. Left eye vision was counting fingers from four meters not improving with glasses. PW-5 is the Professor, Regional Eye Hospital and Member in the 7 Regional Medical Board, Warangal. He issued Ex.A9 disability certificate on 16.1.2012 stating that PW-1's left eye vision was counting finger one meter, anterior segment - pupils dilated and sluggist - fundas examination is optic atrophy 100% visual disability. He admitted that the patient can identify items at a distance of one meter. According to the petitioner, he is a Graduate and working as an Operator in offset Printing Press and Binding Works under the name and style of Rainbow Offset Printers, Hanamkonda with a monthly salary of Rs.8,500/-. PW-7 employer of PW-1 deposed that the petitioner was working in his printers for four years and he was paying salary of Rs.8,500/- per month and he lost his job due to the accident and he was a skilled worker. Ex.A15 salary certificate was issued by him. However, the Tribunal while calculating the loss of earning capacity, the income of the petitioner has taken at Rs.4,000/- per month alleging that the employer of PW-1 not maintaining the wages register, attendance register and also advance register, which appears to be too meager. However, considering the evidence of PW-7, this Court is inclined to take the income of petitioner at Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the records, the claimant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident. Then the appropriate 8 multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 would be "17". Thus, the future loss of income due to 100% disability comes to Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17 = Rs.14,28,000/-, which the petitioner/claimant is entitled. Further the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant charges for the entire life of the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss of marriage prospects of the petitioner, which are not disturbed.
13. Further, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded for fracture of right leg, Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the head injury and Rs.10,000/- is awarded for the simple injury. Further the Tribunal also awarded an amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferance, which is not disturbed. Further an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards transport charges and extra nourishment. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.18,13,000/-.
14. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though respondent No.1 is the insured as per Ex.B1, subsequently the vehicle was changed to respondent 1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 No.2 who did not take steps of getting his name in the insurance documents. Ex.B1 shows that the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3-Insurance Company covering the date of accident. Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.11,40,000/- to Rs.18,13,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is directed to pay the deficit court fee and on such deposit of court fee only, the claimant is at liberty to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 28.12.2022 pgp