HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1539 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.903 of 2001, dated 29.01.2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him, in the accident which occurred on 31.03.2001 at 3.30 a.m. The said accident occurred, while the claimant and villagers of China Ravulapally engaged a Lorry bearing No.AP-02-T-9369, for transporting vegetables to Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad and when the said lorry reached Tokatta gate, the driver of the lorry drove it at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, it turned turtle and the claimant sustained head injury, fracture to left 2 GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 occipital bone, left intra ventricular bleed, hariplegia and spasticity caused. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and from there to Sri Sairam Hospital. Basing on the complaint, a case was registered against the driver of the lorry, for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC in Cr.No.77 of 2001, on the file of Moinabad Police Station.
4. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 40 years at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as an agriculturist and milk vendor and that he incurred huge amounts for his treatment, other expenses, also sustained permanent disability and lost his earning capacity.
5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondent/Insurance Company disputing the age, income, occupation and also the expenditure incurred by the claimant. Further, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the Lorry.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.62,000/-. 3
GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to the quantum alone.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month and also did not consider the disability of 60%, though it was assessed by the medical board and therefore, prayed to consider the income and disability while granting compensation and also to grant compensation under the other notional heads.
10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere 4 GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 with the same, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal by confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on 31.03.2001. It is specifically pleaded by the claimant before the Tribunal that he was aged 40 years as on the date of the accident, though it is mentioned as 38 years in Ex.A-4, i.e., the disability certificate. But the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant as 40 years basing on Ex.A-2/Charge sheet and awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head "disability". The Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/- p.m. though it is pleaded by the claimant that he was earning Rs.3,000/- p.m. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence on record to prove the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- p.m.
12. The evidence of P.W.3/Dr. K.Vishnu Prasad clearly disclose that the claimant has sustained serious head injury and the injuries mentioned in the claim petition are corroborated with the evidence of P.W.3. But, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.A-4/disability 5 GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 certificate in its true spirit, while granting compensation. No reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for discarding Ex.A-4.
13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant under the following heads:-
1. Permanent disability Rs.50,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.2,972/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.5,000/-
4. Loss of earnings Rs.4,000/-
5. Transport Rs.1,000/-
6. Extra-nourishment Rs.1,000/-
TOTAL Rs.63,972/-
14. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of judgments, this Court is of the considered view that the claimant is entitled for more compensation than awarded by the Tribunal. As there is no documentary evidence as to the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal ought not to have granted lumpsum amount towards permanent disability and it ought to have followed the multiplier method for just and fair compensation. Taking the income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/-p.m., if 25% future prospects is added in terms of the 6 GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others1, it would come to Rs.2,500/- (Rs.2,000 + Rs.500). Further, as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '15' for the age group of 35 to 40 years. As per Ex.A-4 and the oral evidence of P.W.3/Doctor, the claimant sustained 60% of disability. Therefore, the claimant/injured is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of future income (Rs.2,500 X 12 X 15 X 60/100). The claimant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering as he sustained serious injuries and fractures as per Ex.A-3/discharge card. The learned counsel for claimant contended that the claimant incurred Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal has only granted Rs.2,972/- and no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for granting Rs.2,972/- alone. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, as per Ex.A-5. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the claimant suffered loss of earnings for 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 a period of two months due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,000/-, which was already granted by the Tribunal. Further, the claimant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, attendant charges and extra-nourishment.
15. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:
1. Loss of income Rs.2,70,000/-
2. Medical expenses Rs.10,000/-
3. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
4. Loss of earnings for two months Rs.4,000/-
5. Transport, extra-nourishment & Rs.10,000/-
attendant charges
TOTAL Rs.3,19,000/-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- to the claimant with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, jointly and severally payable by respondent Nos.1 and 2 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, as the accident occurred in the year 2001, on payment of deficit Court fee.
8
GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 22.02.2023 dv