1 RRN,J
MACMA No.1535 of 2016
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.1535 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree dated 30.04.2015, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2165 of 2012 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. It is stated that on 20.08.2012 at about 6.45 pm, at Jubilee Bus Stand, Marredpally, Hyderabad, the petitioner was turning inside Jubilee Bus Stand on his Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP11-A-2187 to see off his parents at Jubilee Bus Stand and in the meantime, the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP29-Z-1051 of Karimnagar Depot drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and suddenly took a turn and dashed the scooter of the petitioner without following traffic rules. Immediately after the 2 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016 accident, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad, in an Ambulance for treatment. The petitioner sustained a head injury, contusion of right temporal, left frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes, subdural haemorrhage below tentorium and left temporal parietal region and the TBI with seizures inability to walk and left temporal SHD with minimal midline shift and subarachanoid haemorrhage and fracture at BB left leg, with displaced tibial lower 1/3rd and displaced, segmental fracture fibula lower 1/3rd. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.8.00 lakhs.
4. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A21. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
5. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that prior to the accident, the petitioner was a polytechnic student and due to the accident, he lost one academic year. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- towards suffering and mental agony, which is erroneous. The Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of physiotherapy charges and the Tribunal also failed to consider the disability certificate and also the Tribunal failed to award 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016 compensation under heads of the loss of income and future prospects etc.
6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.2,90,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal erroneously granted a very meagre amount and for enhancement of the same, the petitioner filed the present appeal.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the doctor, who treated the patient, has not given a disability certificate but some other doctor has issued the same. In such case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the compensation of Rs.2,90,000/- in all and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. Heard and perused the record.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of this Court the judgment rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another1 wherein it was held that "Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that Section 4(1) (c) does not stipulate a requirement of assessment by the medical practitioner who had treated the workmen concerned at 1 2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB) 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016 the first instance. It is always open for the qualified medical practitioner to assess the loss of disability vis-à-vis loss of earning capacity with reference to the injuries sustained by him and if the employer or the Insurance Company was not satisfied with the assessment made by the medical practitioner, whose evidence was produced, contra evidence ought to have been adduced by the Insurance Company to rebut or impeach the evidence of the medical officer adduced on behalf of the workmen. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot find fault with the order of the learned Commissioner."
10. Thus, as seen above, the contention of the respondents that the doctor, who treated the patient, has not given a disability certificate but some other doctor has issued the same does not come to the rescue of the respondents.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the income of the petitioner may be considered as Rs.10,000/- as the petitioner is aged about 20 years and at the time of the accident he was quite hale, healthy, young and energetic and was studying Polytechnic Diploma in Engineering. In support of his claim, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala vs. M.Malathi and another2, wherein it was held that an injured girl aged 16 years, who is brilliant in studies and is a student of class XI due to an accident suffered 70% disablement and is unable to walk without crutches, was entitled to a notional income at Rs.10,000/- per month, along with 50% towards future prospects taking 2 2014 ACJ 1441 5 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016 disablement at 70% with a multiplier of 18 to calculate loss of earning capacity. She was also awarded compensation under the heads of loss of amenities, attendant charges and loss of enjoyment of life and marriage prospects. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner in the present case stands on a similar footing to that of the above mentioned case and the observation of the Tribunal holding that the person who issued Ex.A20 disability certificate did not treat the petitioner and the same cannot be taken into consideration, is discarded.
12. In view of the above discussions and keeping in view that the petitioner was pursing his Diploma in Engineering and due to the disability, his bright future with regard to sustainable job opportunities has been hindered. As such, this Court is inclined to fix his monthly income @ Rs.7,000/- per month including with future prospects of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others3 is to be considered. Therefore, the future prospectus of the injured comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (84,000 + 33,600 = 1,17,600/-). From this, 30% is to be considered on account of disablement (Rs.1,17,600 x 30%) = 35,280/-, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as the petitioner is aged 20 years as per Sarla Verma's case. Thus, the 3 2017 ACJ 2700 6 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016 loss of future earnings of the petitioner would come to Rs.35,280/- x 18 =6,35,040/- which is rounded off to Rs.6,35,000/-.
13. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under various heads, especially under medical expenses/treatment despite the petitioner filed Ex-A10 and A11 bills. As such, this Court is of the considered view to grant compensation to the petitioner as against the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal as follows:
Head Amount awarded Amount enhanced by
by Tribunal this Court
Transport Charges Nil Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.15,000/- Rs.25,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.1,65,000/- Rs.2,15,000/-
Extra nourishment Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Attendant charges Rs.15,000/- Rs.15,000/-
Loss of studies Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Injuries Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Loss of future Nil Rs.6,35,000/-
earning/permanent
disability
Total Rs.2,90,000/- Rs.9,90,000/-
14. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the settled law, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount. Hence, the compensation amount awarded is enhanced from Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two Lakh and ninety thousand Only) to Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety Thousand only).
7 RRN,J
MACMA No.1535 of 2016
15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two Lakh and ninety thousand Only) to Rs Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety Thousand only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, the petitioner is directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 9th day of February, 2023 PNS