HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3227 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in M.V.O.P. No.879 of 2015, dated 29.08.2016, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to the petitioner, on 17-09-2013 the petitioner along with his family members were proceeding in Tavera car bearing No. AP.24.Y.9277 from Kanyakumari to Haliya and when they reached near Zilla Parishad High School, Brahmanapalli Village, at about 11-00 p.m., driver of Tavera vehicle drove it in rash and negligent manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and hit the stationed lorry bearing No.AP.29.TB.2523 from its back side. Due to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to a private hospital at Piduguralla and from there to Life Hospital, Guntur where he was admitted as inpatient and underwent surgery to his left hand. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads. 2
MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016
3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte; Respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and income of the claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 to 3 as prayed for?
2) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from 3 MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016 the date of petition till the date of deposit to the appellant- claimant against the respondent No.3.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 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 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.X1 and X2, established the fact that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of Rs.4,80,000/- under various heads.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
4
MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016
10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. However the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tavera vehicle bearing No. AP.24.Y.9277. Now the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of PW-2 who is the Medical officer deposed that the petitioner was admitted in Life Hospital, Guntur on 18-9-2013 at 2-10 A.M. with lacerated wound on scalp deep and crush injury on left parietals and also left hand fingers. He further deposed that patient was referred to Ortho Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon and head injury was managed by medical management and there was crush injury to left ring finger, fracture of carpal bones. The patient was discharged on 16-10-2013 and again he was admitted on 17.10.2013 for surgery to the left hand by skin grafting by plastic surgeon and was discharged on 27-10-2013 and the above injuries are grievous in nature. The evidence of PW-3, another Medical Officer shows that the petitioner was admitted in his hospital on 18-9-2013 with three fracture injuries. The petitioner 5 MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016 underwent K-wire fixation, debridement and sutured later and was discharged on 6-10-2013. He left with stiffness of the left hand gross oedema involving left MCB of all five fingers and IP of all fingers and he lost wrist dorsiflexion and that the stiffness crushing of permanent disability of 60% and lost his earning capacity of 80%. He may not be able to carryout his actual activities of daily living and may not be able to lift weight and carryout heavy works. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 coupled with documentary evidence shows that the petitioner has sustained grievous injuries. Hence considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded towards injuries and pain and suffering. Further the petitioner might not have attended to his work for two months and as such, an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings by taking his income at Rs.4,500/- per month. The evidence of PW.3 clearly established that the petitioner due to permanent disability of 60% has lost his earning capacity at 80%. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW-3, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed at 60%. According to the petitioner, he was doing hotel business and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, as there was no income proof, the income of petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,500/- 6
MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016 per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimant is also entitled to the future prospects and since the petitioner was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, 30% of the income is added towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.5,850/- (4,500 + 1,350 = 5,850). As the claimant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would be "14". Thus, the future loss of income due to 60% disability comes to Rs.5,850 x 12 x 14 x 60/100 = Rs.5,89,680/-, which the petitioner/claimant is entitled. Further considering Ex.A6 medical bills, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- towards medical bills and as such, the same is not disturbed. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, attendant charges and transport charges. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,18,680/-.
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016 Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.8,18,680/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the 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. On such deposit, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 22.11.2022 pgp