THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1920 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the injured/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.1870 of 2008 by award dt.29.07.2011.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 28.06.2008 the appellant was working as a labourer at the Mettuguda Road and at that time, a Ready Mixer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 28TA 0867, being driven by the driver, dashed the divider stone as a result of which, the divider granite stone fell on the left leg of the appellant and the appellant sustained a crush injury on his left leg and grievous injuries on his head and other injuries all over his body.
3. It is stated that the appellant's left leg had to be amputated below the knee and he had to take rest for a period of more than six months. It is submitted that the claimant was an expert in building construction labour work and due to amputation of his left leg, he has become MACMA No.1920 of 2016 2 permanently disabled. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation, but the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.4,84,000/-. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present Appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy, submitted that the disability of the appellant has to be taken at 100% and his monthly income should be adopted at Rs.6,000/- and the age of the appellant is to be taken as 30 years. It is submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have deducted any income towards personal expenses as this is a case of injuries. He submitted that at least a sum of Rs.50,000/- should have been awarded towards loss of amenities, pain and suffering, trauma, etc.
5. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the following judgments.
(1) Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others1. (2) Govind Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited2. 1 2012 ACJ 583 2 2012 ACJ 28 MACMA No.1920 of 2016 3 (3) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another3.
The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that due to amputation of the leg of the appellant, the appellant had submitted a quotation for the artificial leg for Rs.2,81,300/-, but the Tribunal has not considered and allowed the same. He seeks compensation for the artificial leg as well.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is also heard. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable compensation and there is no need for interference therewith.
7. With regard to age of the appellant, it is submitted that at the time of accident due to shock, the claimant had stated his age as 38 years instead of 30 years.
8. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that except for stating so in evidence, the claimant has not produced any material before the Tribunal to prove that his age is 25 or 30 years as claimed by him. 3 2011 ACJ 1 MACMA No.1920 of 2016 4
9. Having regard to the fact that no material has been filed and it cannot also be ruled out that the claimant would have been under shock and would have stated the age as 38 years instead of 30 years, this Court deems it fit and proper to adopt the multiplier 16, which is applicable to the age limit of 31-35 years at the time of the accident. The monthly income of the claimant is to be adopted @ Rs.6,000/- by taking Rs.200/-
- Rs.300/- as the income of a labourer per day.
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, this Court observes that the appellant's left leg got crushed in the accident and ultimately amputated. Since the appellant has lost his leg and was aged about 30-35 years, his disability is to be taken as 90% and the loss of earning capacity is quantified at 75%. The said quantification is done in the lines explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another4. Therefore, the compensation has to be awarded accordingly.
11. While calculating accordingly [Rs.72,000 (earnings per annum) x 75% (% of loss of earning capacity) x 16 (multiplier)], the appellant is 4 (2011) 1 SCC 343 MACMA No.1920 of 2016 5 entitled to Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of future earnings due to amputation of leg. Regarding compensation for artificial leg, no evidence is placed.
12. The compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities as allowed by the Tribunal is granted at Rs.1,00,000/-. The loss of past earnings as awarded by the Tribunal is granted at Rs.36,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards medical treatment, transportation, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses, is also granted.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant is entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Income (6000x12) Rs.72,000 per annum
(2) Loss of future earnings per
annum (75% of the annual
income) Rs.54,000 per annum
(3) Multiplier 16
(4) Loss of future earnings
(54,000 x16) Rs.8,64,000
(5) Compensation towards
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
6
Medical treatment,
transportation, extra
nourishsment and other
incidental expenses as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,70,000
(6) Compensation towards
pain and suffering and
loss of amenities as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,00,000
(7) Loss of past income as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.36,000
Total compensation awarded Rs.11,70,000/- along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till
payment.
14. In the result, the award dt.29.07.2011 in M.O.P.No.1870 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by awarding a total compensation of Rs.11,70,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and seventy thousand only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation against both the respondents jointly and severally. As the compensation payable to the appellants as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- is granted MACMA No.1920 of 2016 7 subject to payment of Court fee on such enhanced compensation. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
15. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 10.10.2022 ?/Svv