1 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.717 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation aggrieved by the order and decree dt.12.11.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.968 of 2013 by the XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2012 at about 9.30 a.m., the petitioner had visited Government Hospital, Bhongir, for getting treatment to his injured legs and returning to his house. While entering into bus-stand in front of Government Junior College, the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-9518 drove it while coming out of the bus-stand in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to which, his right leg was fractured and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir, and later shifted to Gandhi Hospital where his leg was amputated, from there on 14.12.202 he was taken to Raghavendra Hospital, ECIL, where 2 RRN,J MACMA No.717 of 2015 his leg was again amputated below knee. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.15.00 lakhs.
4. Respondents filed counter denying the petition allegations.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner K. Danaiah, due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle (APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-10Z-9518) by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii) To what relief?
6. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding a sum of Rs.6,38,000/- 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.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner is having agricultural land to an extent of Ac.05-12 gts., and claimed that he is an agriculturist, earning Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken very meager income of the petitioner i.e. @ Rs.3,800/- per month. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.13,00,000/- under the head disability, but awarded only Rs.3,58,000/- and also not considered 30% additional compensation as per Apex Court judgment reported in Santosh Devi1. He further contended that no amount was awarded towards purchase of artificial leg and also contended that due to his disability, the vast land owned by him will not fetch income.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- in all and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
11. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A8 and A9 which are the Pahani copy and copy of pass book pertaining to the land belonging to the petitioner, fixed the income of the petitioner @ Rs.46,000/- p.a (Rs.3,833/- per month). However, learned counsel for the 1 2012ACJ1428 SC 4 RRN,J MACMA No.717 of 2015 petitioner contended that the income fixed by the Tribunal is meager and prayed to consider the monthly income of the petitioner @ Rs.10,000/-. This Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the petitioner @ Rs.7,000/- (Rs.84,000/- per annum.) The petitioner was not awarded future prospects and the same at 25% 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 prospects of the petitioner comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (84,000 + 21,000/-). Though the disability of the petitioner is assessed at 60%, this Court is inclined to fix it at 80% as the income of the petitioner was solely out of agriculture and due to such disability, it is almost impossible for him to carry on the same. As such, 80% is to be considered on account of disablement (Rs.1,05,000 x 80/100) = 84,000/-, the appropriate multiplier is 13 as per Sarla Verma3 as the petitioner is aged 48 years. Thus, the loss of future earnings of the petitioner including future prospects would come to Rs.84,000/- x 13 = 10,92,000/-.
12. 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:
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
3
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
Head Amount awarded Amount awarded by
by Tribunal this Court
Extra Rs. 50,000 Rs.50,000/-
nourishment,
travelling and
attendant Charges,
Disability, Pain and Rs.3,58,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
suffering and (Wrongly awarded (excluding disability)
injuries under this head
instead of loss of
earnings)
Medical expenses Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Artificial leg -- Rs.50,000/-
Loss of amenities -- Rs.30,000/-
Loss of future Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.10,92,000/-
earning/permanent
disability
Total Rs.6,38,000/- Rs.13,52,000/-
13. It is settled law that irrespective of the claim made by the claimants, the Courts have to award just and reasonable compensation, however, the claimants have to pay deficit court fee.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,38,000/- to Rs.13,52,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and Fifty two 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 6 RRN,J MACMA No.717 of 2015 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 14th day of February, 2023 BDR