THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is directed against the award dated 31.07.2010 in O.P.No.304 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District (FTC), Nalgonda (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein seeking compensation was allowed, awarding Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the material on record.
3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.10.2006 at about 09:30 a.m. According to the claimant, on that day, he was proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 24 V 8749 from Nalgonda to Chinnamadaram Village and when the auto reached the outskirts of 2 Thorangal Village, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, resulting in the auto turning turtle. The claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately he was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda for treatment. Police, Kanagal registered a case in Cr.No.95 of 2006 against the driver of the auto for the offence punishable under Section 337 IPC.
4. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the driver and respondent No.2, who is owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondent No.3-insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying its liability to pay the compensation.
5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The said finding had become final, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that the claimant was entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum.
3
6. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal while deciding the award had taken the income of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month and came to the conclusion that the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.4,02,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that the Tribunal having come to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.4,02,000/- is reasonable and just compensation, ought to have awarded the above said amount, instead of restricting the claim to Rs.1,00,000/-, irrespective of the claim of the claimant.
7. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, and if so to what extent?
8. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injuries, besides fracture injury to his right femur and suffered permanent partial disability of 50% due to restriction of right knee movements. Since the claimant suffered 50% permanent partial disability which is proved with cogent evidence of the doctors (P.Ws.2 and 3) and Ex.A-9 disability certificate, the 4 Tribunal had rightly calculated the net loss of earnings of the claimant after taking into consideration his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. As there is no reliable evidence about the actual income of the claimant and basing on the normal wage standards, the Tribunal had arrived at the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.
PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, the claimant is entitled for additional 40% on the income towards future prospects, as he was aged 22 years as on the date of accident. Applying the same, the income of the claimant can be fixed at Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Further, the claimant suffered permanent partial disability of 50%. The claimant was aged 22 years at the time of accident and the Tribunal had applied the multiplier '17'. But as the per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2, the multiplier that can be applied to the age of the claimant is '18'. If the same is calculated, the loss of future earning capacity 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009(6) SCC 121 5 comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 50% x 18). Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.65,500/- towards treatment and medical expenditure, Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.1,500/- towards attendant charges. The award of the above amounts is just and reasonable and they are hereby confirmed. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.5,24,600/- (Rs.4,53,600/- + Rs.65,500/- + Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,000/-).
9. On the above conclusions, the appeal is allowed. The award of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,24,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal i.e., 31.07.2010 till realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The claimants shall pay deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation, since the claim is for Rs.1,00,000/-. If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of the M.V. Rules before the Tribunal, the claimant is not entitled for execution of Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There shall be no order as to costs.
6
10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 13.10.2022 Lrkm