THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1700 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 28.03.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death of one Janige Shanthamma, wife of claimant No. 1, mother of claimant Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.07.2011. According to the claimants, on the fateful day, the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 0638, owned and driven by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 3, to go to Palem, at about 05:30 p.m., and while she was getting down from the auto at Palem 2 MGP, J Macma_1700_2017 S.C.Wada, the driver of the said auto suddenly started and moved in a rash and negligent manner without observing about the alighting of the deceased. As a result, she fell on the ground and sustained head injury, fracture of occipital bone, hemorrhagic contusion of both frontal bones. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Wanaparthy and from there, shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and later, she was admitted as inpatient for 20 days in Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad. Thereafter, she took treatment with one Dr.Seetharamaiah, Neuro Surgeon, Kurnool, who advised her to take follow-up treatment. She spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards treatment and medicine. On 11.05.2012, she succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. Thus, the appellants filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 3 (respondent No. 2 name was deleted by orders dated 08.09.2016) claiming compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs towards compensation under different heads.
4. Before the tribunal, the respondent No. 1 filed counter denying the petition allegations, income of the deceased, death of the deceased while undergoing treatment. He further submitted that the accident occurred due to gross negligence 3 MGP, J Macma_1700_2017 on the part of the deceased and the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident and prayed to dismiss the petition against respondent No. 1. Per Contra the respondent No. 3, Insurance Company, filed counter denying the manner in which the accident took place, avocation of the deceased and the driver of the crime vehicle over loaded the passengers in the vehicle and thus violated the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. Considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part, awarding total compensation of Rs.60,000/- along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of the realization, to be deposited by the respondent Nos.1 & 3, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the claimants have filed this appeal.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused the material available on record.
4
MGP, J Macma_1700_2017
7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal should have seen that the deceased died only on account of the injuries sustained by her in the alleged accident. It is further contended that Tribunal erred in not adding future prospects to the established income of the deceased and that the amount awarded under the conventional heads is meagre and needs to be enhanced.
8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the accident, coupled with the documentary evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR; A.12, Charge Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 0638. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective.
5
MGP, J Macma_1700_2017
10. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the accident took place on 19.07.2011 and the deceased died on 11.05.2012 i.e. ten months after the accident. Though the claim is based on the death of the deceased, there is no evidence adduced by the claimants to show that the cause of death of the deceased was in connection with the injuries sustained by her in the accident that took place on 19.07.2011. Furthermore, no medical evidence is adduced to disclose the cause of death of the deceased. A perusal of medical evidence would reveal that as per Ex.A.2, wound certificate issued by the doctor at Government Hospital, Wanaparthy, the deceased sustained head injury and underwent CT Brain plain scanning through radiologist at SVS Hospital on 20.07.2011 where it is mention that i) Hemarragic contusion of both frontal lobes; ii) Linear undisplaced fracture of occipital bone and thereafter she was admitted as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital on 25.07.2011 and discharged on 28.07.2011. As per Exs.A.3 to A.10, medical prescriptions, she took treatment privately in various hospitals. Considering the avocation of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken her monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which is very less. As the deceased was homemaker who used to 6 MGP, J Macma_1700_2017 work as coolie apart from doing unpaid house hold work, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.6,000/-. It is true that the accident occurred on 19.07.2011 and the deceased sustained injuries due to the said accident. However, the deceased died on 11.05.2012 i.e., after ten months of the accident. In the said circumstance, this Court is inclined to award Rs.60,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 10 months) is awarded towards loss of earnings during the treatment period of ten months. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, are very meagre and need to be enhanced. Considering medical evidence available on record, Exs.A.2 to A.10, this Court is inclined to award Rs.30,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.20,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to Rs.1,50,000/-.
11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount 7 MGP, J Macma_1700_2017 shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 & 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, the claimants are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 06.04.2023 gms/tsr 8 MGP, J Macma_1700_2017 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.1700 of 2017 DATE: 06.04.2023 gms/tsr