1 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
MACMA NO. 634 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.01.10.2013 in O.P No.96 of 2011 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-IX Additional District Judge, Kamareddy (for short "the Tribunal"), the claimant preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,95,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization of the amount against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally against the claim of Rs.6,00,000/- laid by the appellant/claimant.
3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08.04.2011 while the petitioner was proceeding on his bicycle from Kancharla village street towards the main road and when he reached near Uradamma Temple at Kancharla village at about 1.15 p.m., the driver of the Lorry bearing No.AP-9-T-0969 drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the 2 RRN, J MACMA NO.634 of 2014 petitioner's cycle. As a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained loss of both jaws, loss of four teeth, fracture of left leg, fracture of left knee and skull. Hence, the present claim petition.
4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed counters denying the allegations made in the petition.
5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
6. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company.
7. According to the appellant/claimant, the Tribunal erroneously granted a very meagre amount and for enhancement of the same, the petitioner filed the present appeal. Upon considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,95,000/- as against Rs.6,00,000/-. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant that the Tribunal failed to consider the 3 RRN, J MACMA NO.634 of 2014 disability as stated by the Doctor/PW.2 and awarded a very meagre amount under the head of disability.
8. A perusal of the evidence of PW.2 and the medical certificate, it reveals that the petitioner had a crush injury of the ankle on foot with loss of shaft tissue exposing bone and crush injury of left knee exposing joint anterior with loss of soft tissue over the anterior aspect of the lower thigh exposing bones. Further PW.2 deposed that there is ankylosis of the left knee with 30 degrees of fixed fraction, deformation which amounts to 40% physical disability and functional disability. The respondents have not disputed the same by adducing any evidence. Whereas the Tribunal has assessed 20% disability.
9. In Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another1 wherein it was held as follows:
"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 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 1 2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB) 4 RRN, J MACMA NO.634 of 2014 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."
In the absence of contra evidence, this Court is inclined to take into consideration the disability of 40% as assessed by the PW.2. Since the petitioner is a minor, multiplier "15" is taken and notional income is assessed at Rs.15,000/- per annum. As such, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the appellant/claimant @ Rs.15,000/- per annum, in view of 40% disability of the appellant/claimant and future prospects of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 is to be considered. Therefore, the future prospectus of the injured at 40% comes to Rs.21,000/- (15,000/- + 6,000/- = 21,000/-). From this, 40% is to be considered on account of disablement (Rs.21,000 x 40% = 8,400/-), the appropriate multiplier is 15 as the petitioner is aged 13 years as per Sarla Verma's case. Thus, the loss of future earnings of the petitioner would come to Rs.8,4000/- x 15 =1,26,000/-.
2 2017 ACJ 2700
5 RRN, J
MACMA NO.634 of 2014
10. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under various heads, especially under medical expenses/treatment though the petitioner filed Ex-A6 and A9 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 Tribunal by this Court
Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/- Rs. 50,000/-
Medical expenses Rs.75,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
Transportation, Rs.25,000/- Rs. 40,000/-
Extra nourishment
and attendant
charges
Loss of studies Nil Rs. 30,000/-
Loss of future Rs.45,000/- Rs.1,26,000/-
earning/ disability
(disability)
Total Rs.1,95,000/- Rs.3,46,000/-
11. Thus, the compensation amount awarded is
enhanced from Rs.1,95,000/- to Rs.3,46,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and forty six thousand only).
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part, by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,95,000/- to 6 RRN, J MACMA NO.634 of 2014 Rs.3,46,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh and forty six thousand only) with the 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. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 14th day of February, 2023 BDR