HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.3091 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No.199 of 2009, dated 04-06-2010, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal.
2. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to the petitioner, on 17.11.2008 he was returning to Hyderabad in the auto bearing No. AP 24 V 8395 and when the auto reached Raigiri village at about 10-30 a.m., the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner without observing the opposite bus bearing No. AP 28 Z 3549 of Warangal Depot and dashed the same by overtaking another vehicle. Consequently the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Bhongir and from there he was shifted to Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for 15 days and was operated on 20.11.2008 and rods were inserted in his leg. He spent Rs.1,17,554/- towards medical expenses. According to the petitioner, he was a computer operator 2 besides document writer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled and lost his income. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the auto jointly and severally.
3. Respondent No.1 set ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and income of the claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident took place on 17.11.2008 at about 10-30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No. AP.24.V.8395 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?
3) To what relief?
5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On 3 behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked.
6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,63,000/- towards compensation along with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to the appellant- claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the material available on record.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.11, established the fact that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount under various heads.
9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries 4 sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.
10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of accident. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of PWs.1 and 3 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP.24.V.8395. Now the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of compensation.
11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of the claimant/PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence shows that he sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Bhongir and from there he was shifted to Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for 15 days and was operated on 20.11.2008 and rods were inserted in his leg. He spent Rs.1,17,554/- towards medical expenses. Further according to the evidence of PW-4, Orthopedic Surgeon in Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, PW-1 was admitted in their hospital on 18.11.2008 and was discharged on 24.11.2008 and that he has 5 sustained i) fracture of right humorous, ii) fracture of right femur,
iii) fracture of right tibia, iv) fracture of right ankle and v) crush injury on right foot, which are grievous in nature and he was operated on 20.11.2008 and plates were inserted in his right femur and they have to be removed subsequently. He further deposed that there is stiffness in the right knee besides deformity on various parts. He assessed the disability of PW-1 at 60% which is permanent in nature. PW-1 also filed Ex.A8 disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which shows that the disability is 100%. Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 coupled with documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities, Rs.25,000/- for five grievous injuries, which are very less. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by PW-1 and the treatment taken by him, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to PW-1 for five grievous injuries @ Rs.20,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- is also awarded to PW-1 towards pain and sufferance. Further the tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- towards medical bills and the same is not disturbed.
6
12. Coming to the disability, as stated above, PW-4 stated that the petitioner has sustained 60% disability which is permanent in nature. PW-1 filed the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, which shows that the petitioner has sustained 100% disability. However, the tribunal had taken the disability sustained by the petitioner at 50%, which appears to be very less. Therefore, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed at 60% as stated by the doctor who treated him. According to PW-1, he was a computer operator and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. PW.2 who is the employer of PW-1 stated that PW-1 used to get Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the tribunal has taken the income of PW-1 at Rs.36,000/- per annum i.e., Rs.3,000/- per month, which is very less. Therefore, considering the avocation of the petitioner as computer operator, his income can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the records, the claimant was aged about 37 years at the time of accident. Then the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 would be "15". Thus, the future loss of income due to 60% disability comes to Rs.5,000 x 12 x 15 x 60/100 =Rs.5,40,000/-, which the petitioner/ 1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 7 claimant is entitled towards loss of income. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,05,000/-.
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,63,000/- to Rs.8,05,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant shall pay the deficit court fee and on such payment of court fee only, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 09.01.2023 pgp