HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1819 of 2010
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.06.2010, in O.P.No.1739 of 2008 on the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation as the Tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.85,000/-, though the appellant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Therefore, the appreciation would be with respect to compensation alone and not of liability.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was working as driver cum owner of the vehicle as on the date of accident, the Tribunal has erred in taking the total 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1819 of 2010 income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/-p.m.. It is further contended that though the appellant has claimed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.9,000/- under the heads of transport and extra nourishment and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.1,250/- under the heads of transport and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further, the Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards loss of amenities, social status, shock and mental agony and loss of marriage prospectus. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal might have considered the judgments of the Apex Court while granting compensation and prayed to enhance the amount.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. It is an admitted fact that the Tribunal has come to a conclusion that the claimant being the insured has sustained injuries due to accident which took place on 02.05.2008 at about 3 GAC, J MACMA.No.1819 of 2010 8:30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and trolley bearing No.AP-25G-2581 and AP-23M-2750 by its driver and therefore, he is entitled for compensation. As per the pleadings, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries on left thigh, head and all over the body. Ex.A-3 is the injury certificate and Exs.A-4 to A-8 are the discharge summary card, prescriptions disability certificate, estimation certificate and X-ray film respectively. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under various heads by way of lump sum amount without adopting the calculations. It is the specific finding of the Tribunal that the appellant was the driver, but the driving license of the driver was not filed in order to prove that he was the driver as on the date of the accident. But as per the proposition laid in Ramachandrappa vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Limited1, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of documentary evidence.
8. P.W.2 is the Doctor, who was working as Orthopedic surgeon in Gandhi Hospital was examined before the Court. The 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.1819 of 2010 disability certificate was issued by him and not by the medical board constituted as per the norms of the Government. As per the disability certificate, the appellant sustained 25% of the partial permanent disability. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that he treated P.W.1 as in-patient in his hospital and the appellant got admitted in the hospital with comminuted fracture shaft of left femur at middle third and was discharged on 16.05.2008. The Tribunal has not taken into consideration, the disability certificate issued by P.W.2. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that appellant was treated surgically at Gandhi Hospital and later at Sai Specialty Clinics for four times. In the present case, the Doctor/P.W.2 has given the disability certificate assessing the disability of the appellant as 25%.
9. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Saleem and others v. Abdul Shukur & another2, held that there is no requirement to prove disability by examining the Doctor who treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same Doctor. In the present case, PW-2 is the Doctor who examined the 2 2007 (1) ALT 648 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1819 of 2010 appellant and issued Ex.A-6/disability certificate and the appellant was also treated at Sai Speciality Clinic for four times. The evidence of PW-2 clearly discloses that the appellant approached him for the purpose treatment and he treated the appellant and issued disability certificate i.e. Ex.A-6, assessing the disability to be 25%, therefore, it is just and necessary to consider the disability certificate for grant of compensation to the appellant.
10. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, the claimant is entitled for future prospects of 40%. As stated supra, the income of the claimant is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd4, if 40% is added to the income of the claimant, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). The age of the claimant as on the date of accident was 25 years as per Ex.A-6/disability certificate. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v. 3 2017 ACJ 2700 4 (2011) 13 SCC 236 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1819 of 2010 Delhi Transport Corporation & another5, the appropriate multiplier would be '18' for the age group of 15 to 25 years. Therefore, the annual income of the claimant would come to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300 X 12). If multiplier '18' and disability of 25% are applied to the annual income, it would come to Rs.3,40,200/- (Rs.75,600 X 18 X 25/100). Though it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has incurred amount towards medical expenses, no bills are filed before the Court. Even in the absence of medical bills and oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the following heads:
1. Loss of earnings including Rs.3,40,200/-
disability
2. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.2,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.5,000/-
5. Extra-nourishment Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,87,200 /-
5
(2009) 6 SCC 121
7
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.3,87,200/-, with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondents jointly and severally to the claimant within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee, as the accident occurred in the year 2008.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 19.04.2023 dv