THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3167 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 19.03.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/ claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 08.09.2008. It is stated that on 08.09.2008 at about 8:30 a.m., the claimant, along with Md.Sameer Pasha and Surya Kumar, was travelling in Accent Car bearing No.AP 10 AH 5400, being driven by the 2 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014 claimant and when they reached in the village outskirts of Aitipamula on National Highway No.9, one Car bearing No.AP 20 S 3569, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the Car of the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant and other inmates of the Car, sustained injuries. The claimant sustained fracture of left femur, grievous injury to left wrist, abrasion over the right leg knee and other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was admitted in Kamineni Hospital, Narketparlly and after first aid, he was shifted to Niveditha Orthopedic Centre, Hyderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient from 08.09.2008 to 14.09.2008 and an operation was conducted under ORIF and bone grafting was also done. Therefore, the claimant laid the claim-petition against the respondents seeking compensation under different heads.
3
MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and also the disability certificate, Ex.A15, while awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation duly taking into consideration the disability at 40% sustained by the claimant, as stated by P.W.2.
4
MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence and the same needs no interference.
8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of the vehicle.
9. The short question that arises for consideration is "whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and equitable"?
10. In order to establish his case, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. In support of the injuries as well as the disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A15, disability certificate, issued by P.W.2. P.W.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, had deposed in his evidence that the claimant cannot sit and squat for a long distance and 5 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014 he cannot do heavy work and was suffering with 40% partial and permanent disability. As seen from Ex.A5, the claimant was unable to work as there is deformity of left thigh. As the petitioner is a driver and sustained grievous injuries to his leg, the functional disability sustained by the appellant is fixed at 40%, as stated by the doctor, which is supported by the disability certificate. In view of nature of disability sustained, the claimant is entitled to loss of earnings due to disability.
11. As regard the income of the claimant, considering Ex.A13, appointment order issued by Hyderabad Castings Limited, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income f the claimant at Rs.8,350/-. As the age of the claimant at the time of accident was 25 years, the appropriate multiplier in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, is '18'. Therefore, adopting the said multiplier the loss of earnings on account of the disability comes to Rs.8,350/- x 12 x 18 x 40/100 = 1 2009 ACJ 1298 6 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014 Rs.7,21,440/-. Further, the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by the claimant; Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment, travelling and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards paid and suffering are not interfered with. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,11,440/- as compensation.
12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made which is impermissible under law.
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another2 and Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh3, the claimant is entitled 2 (2011) 10 SCC 756 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014 to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount what was claimed by the claimant.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.8,11,440/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount. However, the appellant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 04.01.2023 Tsr 8 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A. No. 3167 of 2014 DATE:04-01-2023