1 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A. No. 523 of 2015
JUDGMENT:
This M.A.C.M.A is filed by the claimants/petitioners against the order and decree dated 26.07.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1439 of 2011 on the file XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts, at Hyderabad (in short 'the Court below').
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 18.09.2007 at about 5.30 PM, one J. Janardhan Yadav (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased petitioner') was standing by the side of the road near Vegetable Market, Kushaiguda and an RTC bus bearing No. AP-28-Z-1961 which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from ECIL X Road going towards Nagaram and dashed the petitioner, due to which, the legs of the deceased petitioner were crushed under the rear wheels of the bus. The deceased petitioner was immediately rushed to a nearby hospital and later shifted to Medicity Hospital and was admitted as an inpatient. His right leg 2 RRN,J MACMA No.523 of 2015 was amputated below the knee and was being treated for injuries to his left leg. The deceased petitioner was discharged on 29.10.2007 and incurred heavy medical expenditure including the purchase of an artificial limb. The deceased petitioner filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and during its pendency, he passed away on 24.06.2012 leaving his legal heirs who then got themselves impleaded as petitioners/claimants No.2 to 4 and pursued the claim.
4. The respondent entered appearance and resisted the claim by filing a counter.
5. The Court below after hearing both sides, framed issues and for the petitioners, PWs1-6 were got examined and marked Exhibits A1 to A16. The respondent neither adduced either oral or documentary evidence.
6. The Court below after considering all issues, allowed the petition in part by granting Rs.5,80,000/- with costs in all with an interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present M.A.C.M.A. is filed for enhancement of the amount.
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the tribunal granted less compensation without appreciating oral and documentary evidence which was filed in support of the petitioners' case and further failed to consider granting loss of earnings of the deceased petitioner as he could not earn owing to his injuries. He further contended that the deceased petitioner was removed from his job by his employer HMT Bearing Ltd. within two months from the date of his accident. Confining himself to the above ground, the petitioners are seeking enhancement of compensation under the head of loss of earnings.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent argued that the death of the deceased petitioner was not caused due to the accident and there is no inquest report. He further contended that the deceased petitioner was discharged on 29.10.2007 and was very much able to work and submitted 4 RRN,J MACMA No.523 of 2015 that the court below was justified in awarding the amount in question and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. Having considered the rival contentions of both parties, this Court is of the considered view, that the Court below erred in not computing the loss of earnings of the deceased petitioner for the time period of out of employment, till his death, as the deceased petitioner lost his employment due to the accident which resulted in the amputation of one leg below the knee and serious injury to the other. There is no rebuttal evidence adduced by the respondent to disprove the same. It can be safely concluded that had it been the deceased petitioner, who was not injured, he would have continued his employment, including the possibility to be granted more DA and allowances as per the evidence of PW6. In the absence of any evidence, oral or documentary, to prove that the petitioner might have had another source of income, keeping in view the object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being a beneficial legislation, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to just compensation including future prospects, till the date of the death of the deceased petitioner, under the head 'loss of earnings'.
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.523 of 2015
11. Admittedly, the petitioner was earning a sum of Rs.18,816/- per month which comes to Rs.2,25,792/- per annum. As the dependents are 3 in number, the contribution of the deceased petitioner would be 1/3rd , deducting the same, his income per annum would be Rs.1,50,603/- (Rs.2,25,792/- - 1/3rd). There is no document to show the age of the deceased petitioner, nor there is any submission made by the counsel to that effect. Hence, it is not feasible to compute future prospects. On examination, it is arrived that the petitioner was out of employment for 56 months, as such, the loss of earnings would be Rs.1,50,603/- x 56 = Rs.7,02,814/- which is substituted in place of Rs.1,00,000/- which was awarded by the Court below. The petitioners were awarded Rs.3,00,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.80,000/- for injuries and Rs.1,00,000/- for extra nourishment, travelling and attendance charges and the same is reasonable, hence no interference is required.
12. In all, the petitioners are entitled to enhanced compensation of Rs.11,82,814/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh, Eighty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen only).
13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part and the compensation amount awarded by the Court below is enhanced 6 RRN,J MACMA No.523 of 2015 from Rs.5,80,000/- to Rs.11,82,814/- (Rupees Eleven Lakh, Eighty Two Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fourteen only) with interest at 7.5 % p.a from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent is directed to deposit said amount with costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The compensation amount shall be apportioned by the petitioners in the ratio and manner as directed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 1st day of March, 2023.
BDR