HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4083 of 2014 and 57 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT:
These two appeals are being disposed of by this common
judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.4083 of 2014 filed by the
Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (previously,
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation) and
M.A.C.M.A.No.57 of 2015 filed by the injured-claimant, assailing
the quantum of compensation, are directed against the very
same order and decree, dated 12.06.2014 made in
M.V.O.P.No.2405 of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimant filed a claim
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
against the respondents claiming compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 11.08.2012. It is stated that on the fateful day, at about 06:45 hours, when the claimant was MGP, J 2 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 waiting at Kurnool-2 Deport to go to Nandyal to write Group-IV examination, one Nandyal Depot RTC bus bearing No. AP 21 Z 380 came and stopped. While the passengers were boarding the bus, the driver moved the bus at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant, due to which, the claimant fell down on the road. The bus ran over on the right leg of the claimant resulting into crush injury to the right leg apart from other multiple injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and later she was shifted to Kamineni Hospital, L.B.Nagar and thereafter she took treatment in R.R.Hospital, Kurnool. Due to the said accident, the claimant sustained multiple injuries and her right leg was amputated above the knee. She incurred hospital and medical expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/-. According to the claimant, she was aged about 21 years and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as teacher and tutor in Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool and used to contribute her entire earnings for the welfare of the family. Due to the accident, she sustained permanent disability and lost her future earnings. Therefore, she laid the claim petition against the respondents, seeking compensation of Rs.25.00 lakhs.
MGP, J
3 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015
4. Before the Tribunal, the RTC contested the claim by filing counter inter alia contending that the claim made by the claimants is excessive and disputing the manner of the accident.
5. Considering the claim, counter filed by the RTC, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the M.V.O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.16,54,600/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum to be paid by the respondents jointly and severally.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the RTC (appellant in MACMA No.4083 of 2014) has vehemently argued that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence brought on record in proper perspective and erroneously held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. In fact, the accident took place due to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who was trying to catch the moving bus without observing the moving vehicles on the road. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence even on the part of the claimant. As regards the quantum of compensation, it is contended that though the claimant has asserted that she was aged 21 years and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as teacher and tutor in MGP, J 4 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool, in the absence of any valid proof in that regard, the Tribunal should have restricted the income of the claimant to Rs.5,000/- per month instead of Rs.7,000/-. The learned Standing Counsel specifically contended that the Tribunal erroneously fixed the disability at 80% basing on Ex.A6 issued by the Medical Board, Kurnool, in the absence of examining any person connected therewith.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant (appellant in MACMA No.57 of 2015) has contended that by the time of accident, the claimant was working as teacher and tutor in Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool and drawing monthly salary of Rs.14,000/-. In support of her claim, the claimant got marked Exs.A.9, salary certificate and examined PW.4, Accounts-in-charge of Cattamanchi Ramalinga Redy Group of Schools at Kurnool, who deposed that the claimant was working as social teacher and drawing salary of Rs.14,000/- per month and in order to support his deposition, he filed Ex.X1, authorization of PW.4; Ex.X2, Attested copy of Attendance Register; Ex.X3, Photostats of salary receipts. However, without any valid reasons, the Tribunal has brushed aside the said evidence and has erroneously fixed the meagre MGP, J 5 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 amount of Rs.7,000/- per month. Further, the Tribunal should have awarded some amount towards loss of amenities as the claimant's right leg above knee was amputated which will have great impact on her social and personal life in the future considering her age as 22 years.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC. Perused the material available on record.
9. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the RTC (appellant in MACMA No.4083 of 2014) that the accident occurred due to the contributory negligence even on the part of the claimant as the claimant was trying to catch the moving bus without observing the moving vehicles on the road and therefore, the Tribunal should have apportioned contributory negligence. As seen from the record, Ex.A.1, FIR, was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Further, after due investigation into the crime, police laid the charge sheet, Ex.A.3, against the driver of the offending vehicle stating that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and the driver was charged for the offence under Sections 304-A IPC. That apart, P.W.2, the eyewitness to the accident, clearly stated that the accident MGP, J 6 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. Though it is the case of the RTC that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, for the reasons best known to it, the RTC did not take any steps to summon the driver or any passengers of the offending bus to prove that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, who are the best persons to speak in this regard. Further, no contra evidence was elicited in the cross- examination of P.W. 2, eyewitness to the accident to discredit her testimony. Therefore, considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 & A.3, FIR and charge sheet, the Tribunal has rightly held that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver, which needs no interference by this Court.
10. Now, the short question that arises for consideration is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
11. To prove the treatment and the medical expenses meted out by her, the claimant examined the orthopedic surgeon and consultant in Kamineni Hospital, who treated her, as PW.3 and PW.5, Billing clerk apart from marking Ex.A.4, discharge summary and Ex.A.5, bunch of medical bills for a sum of MGP, J 7 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 Rs.3,48,286/-. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by her, the claimant got marked Ex.A2, medico legal case record; Ex. A6, disability certificate issued by Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kurnool; Ex.A10, Hospital O.P. Tickets; and Ex. A11, X-ray film. As per the evidence of P.W.3 coupled with the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A4-discharge summary, the claimant has sustained lacerated wound over popliteal fosse 4 x 4 cms., in left leg, right leg lower 1/3rd muscles of all compartments were severely crushed with contamination, degloving of skin from lower thigh to ankle, dentle pulses absent, all blood vessels and nerves were severely crushed and he further deposed in his evidence that the claimant was suffering with permanent disability at 80% as her right leg was amputated above the knee. Further, the claimant got marked Ex.A6-disability certificate issued by the competent authority i.e., Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kurnool to the effect that due to the amputation of right leg above the knee, she suffered 80% permanent disability.
12. Insofar as the amount awarded towards compensation under the head of loss of future income, as per the Guidelines for evaluation of various disabilities and procedure for certification, issued by the Government of India, Ministry of MGP, J 8 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 Social Justice & Empowerment, the percentage of disability of lower limb for amputation below the knee lower 1/3rd of leg is 60%. In the instant case, the right leg of the claimant was amputated above the knee. Furthermore, the percentage of disability at 80% mentioned in Ex.A6, disability certificate was issued by Superintendent, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, under the authority vide G.O.Ms.No.109, Women's Development, Child Welfare & Labour Department dated 15.06.1992 and in deposition of PW.3, the doctor who treated the claimant, is corroborated with Ex.A.6 in relation to the disability suffered by the claimant. Hence, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the disability suffered by the claimant at 80% and the same needs no interference.
13. As regards the income, according to the claimant, she was 21 years old at the time of accident and earning Rs.14,000/- per month as Social Teacher and tutor in Cattamanchi Ramalinga Reddy group of Schools, Kurnool. In order to prove her income, the claimant examined PW.4, Accountant in-charge and marked Exs.A7, A8, A9, X1, X2, X3. Ex.A.9, salary receipts (3 in number) clearly disclose that at the time of accident, the claimant was being paid Rs.14,000/- per month. The evidence MGP, J 9 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 of P.W.4 is to the effect that the claimant was being paid Rs.14,000/- per month and that due to the amputation of right leg, the claimant was removed from service. However, the Tribunal has took the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- which is meagre considering the evidence adduced by the claimant. Therefore, considering the avocation and the age of the claimant, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.8,000/-. Since it is the case of amputation of right leg of the claimant at the younger age of 22 years, she is entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects to the established income, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1. Hence, the future monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-). Since the claimant was 22 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2. Adopting multiplier '18', the total loss of income of the claimant due to disability comes to Rs.19,35,360/- (Rs.11,200 x 12 x 18 x 80/100). Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant and the period of 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) MGP, J 10 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 treatment, the Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/- under the head of injury, shock, pain and sufferings; Rs.2,70,000/- towards artificial limbs and Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of hospital, medical, extra nourishment, attendance, transport and incidental charges, which are reasonable and the same are not disturbed considering the medical evidence more particularly, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.5. As far as loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is concerned, in Kavita v. Deepak and others3, the Apex Court has held that victims of accident, who are disabled, either permanently or temporarily, adequate compensation should be awarded not only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which one would have enjoyed had it not been for the disability. The Apex Court further held that the amount awarded under the head of loss of earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with amount awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and medical expenses. In the instant case, since the claimant has already suffered various injuries and has sustained 80% disability because of the amputation of right leg above the knee, this Court deems it fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards 3 (2012) 9 SCC 604 MGP, J 11 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for the compensation as under:-
Sl.No. Amount awarded Amount Amount
under the Head awarded by awarded/enhanced
Tribunal by this Court
1. Injury, shock, Rs.75,000/- Rs.75,000/-
pain and suffering
2. Hospital, medical, Rs.1,00,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
extra
nourishment,
attendance,
transport and
incidental charges
3. Loss of income on Rs.12,09,600/- Rs.19,35,360/-
account of
disability of 80%
4. Towards artificial Rs.2,70,000/- Rs.2,70,000/-
limbs
5. Towards loss of Nil Rs.1,00,000/-
amenities to life
6. TOTAL Rs.16,54,600/- Rs.24,80,360/-
14. In the result, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.4083 of 2014, the M.A.C.M.A.No.57 of 2015 is allowed in part enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.16,54,600/- to Rs.24,80,360/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization payable by the respondents. Time to deposit the amount is one MGP, J 12 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the amount without depositing any security. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 13.04.2023 tsr MGP, J 13 Macma_4083_2014 and 57_2015 THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.4083 of 2014 and 57 of 2015 .04.2023 tsr