1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1850 OF 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.1850 of 2016
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellant/petitioner aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.10.02.2016 in O.P. No.569 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal').
2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,34,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the appellant/petitioner against his claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, to be payable by the respondents, on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-25- X-1353 of the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle, who dashed a parked tractor and trolley bearing No.AP-25-AD- 6910. As a result of the injuries, the petitioner's left leg above the knee was amputated and he incurred heavy amounts towards treatment.
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.1850 OF 2016
3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations of the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.
4. The petitioner in proof of his case, examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. On behalf of respondent No.2 no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was got marked.
5. Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/Petitioner and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.
6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the Tribunal failed to award just compensation under various heads and the same deserves to be enhanced on the ground that there is ample medical evidence on record that the petitioner sustained grievous injury leading to amputation of his left leg above the knee and he was treated inpatient from 15-11-2011 to 28-11-2011 and lost his capacity of future earnings due to the accident 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016 and the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the petitioner on the lower side. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under various heads as a lump sum at Rs.25,000/-. He also contended that the income of the petitioner should be taken on the higher side and the same deserves to be added with future prospects, and that the Tribunal granted very low rate of interest i.e. 6% p.a. and the same needs to be interfered by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company had contended that there is no irregularity in the impugned order as the Tribunal rightly considered the evidence on record and awarded compensation in a justified manner. He further contended that the avocation and income of the petitioner were not proved hence compensation was also on the higher side. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. The issue with regard to the involvement of the Auto of the 1st respondent/owner and the manner of the accident 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016 was rightly decided in favour of the petitioner as the respondents failed to adduce any contrary evidence or elicit anything material in the cross-examination. As such, the aspect of negligence needs no scrutiny. Both respondents are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly and severally as observed by the Tribunal. The only point to be considered in the present appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
9. It is noticed that the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner under the head 'injury, shock and pain and suffering'. The grant of compensation under this head is justified as it is seen from the record that the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and other simple injuries, and assuming that the Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering which comes to Rs.50,000/- there is no fault committed by the Tribunal in awarding such compensation under the above said head. However, this court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner under the head simple injuries.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.1850 OF 2016
10. On guesswork, the Tribunal assessed the monthly earnings of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- and observed that the annual income of the petitioner would be Rs.36,000/-. However, the petitioner claimed to be a fisherman and labourer earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal disbelieved the same as no proof was filed in support of the same and Ex-A2 shows that the petitioner was a student. However, this court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramcandrappa V. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,1 wherein it was held that the monthly income of a victim of a motor vehicle accident can be assessed at Rs.4,500/- per month in the absence of income proof. Hence, the annual income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.54,000/-. To this, future prospects at 40% is to be added as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 as the petitioner was aged below 40 at the time of the accident.
1
( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236
2 2017 ACJ 2700
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.1850 OF 2016
Thus, the annual income of the petitioner with future prospects would come to Rs.75,600/-.
11. The Tribunal applied the multiplier "18" which is justified as the petitioner's age, though there were inconsistent versions, was under 20 years. One of the important issues to be addressed here is whether the disability of the petitioner at 80% vide Ex.A4 disability certificate can be considered or if the Tribunal was justified in considering disability @ 40% for the purpose of calculation of future loss of income. Keeping in view of the age of the petitioner, the Tribunal did such an exercise and this court is of the opinion that keeping in view the age of the petitioner at the time of the accident and the impact of it on his mental health at a such tender age, this court is inclined to consider the disability of the petitioner at 50%. Thus, the total loss of future income due to disability would come to Rs.6,80,400/- (Rs.75,400/- x 18 x 50/100).
12. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has awarded a lumpsum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner under the heads medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant, transport, 7 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016 incidental charges and other expenses. There is no justification or explanation for such an exercise. Assuming that the Tribunal intended to award Rs.25,000/- to the above heads in an equal manner, the compensation to each head would come to Rs.5,000/- and the same is meager. Thus, this court is inclined to enhance such an amount from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.
13. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,80,400/- towards compensation under all heads.(Rs.50,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.6,80,400/- + Rs.40,000/-). The Tribunal granted low rate of interest i.e. @ 6% p.a., but as the Courts are consistently awarding interest @ 7.5 % p.a., the same needs to be enhanced to 7.5% p.a.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,34,200/- to Rs.7,80,400 with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the amount together with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount deposited earlier, if any, within two months from the date of 8 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016 receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 10th day of April, 2023.
BDR/PNS