HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
AND
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2567 and 2645 of 2015
COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Smt. Justice M.G.Priyadarsini)
These two appeals are being disposed of by this
common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of 2015 filed
by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.2645 of
2015 filed by petitioner challenging the quantum of
compensation, are directed against the very same order
and decree, dated 22.06.2015 made in O.P.No.452 of 2011
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII
Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short "the
Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties
will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act
claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries
sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on
15.11.2010. According to the petitioner, on 15.11.2010
while he, along with his friends, N.Bhumesh and
2
G.Srinivas, was proceeding in Maruti Car bearing No.AP 25
L 996 to get diesel from petrol bunk at Bibipoor Thanda
and when they reached the outskirts of Thirmanpally
Village at about 11:15 p.m., one Harvester bearing No.AP
25 Q 9712, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with
respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the Maruti Car. As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture to his left shaft femur, comminuted fracture of both patella, fistula and fracture of left radius. Immediately after the accident, the petitioner was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter he was shifted to Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, where he took treatment as inpatient from 15.11.2010 to 04.12.2010 and during the course of treatment, he underwent surgeries for fixation of implants and he spent huge amount of Rs.15,00,000/- towards treatment. It is the further case of the petitioner that prior to the accident, he was hale and healthy, aged about 29 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per month as he was working as Technician in Dubai and due to the fractures sustained by him in the accident, he is unable to work and lost his earnings and also lost 3 amenities and social status as he suffered permanent disability. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation.
4. Considering the claim and the counters filed by respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs.17,70,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the petitioner respectively.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company. Perused the material available on record.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant in MACMA No. 2645 of 2015) mainly submits that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the same. It is further submitted that though P.W.2, the doctor who treated the petitioner, categorically stated that there is reduction of movements of the left hip and knee and right 4 knee of the petitioner and therefore, he is unable to perform his day-to-day activities like running, squatting or any hard work and also assessed the disability at 55%, the Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and also the disability sustained by the petitioner and erroneously failed to award any amount under the head of loss of future earnings. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to enhance the compensation duly taking into consideration the disability at 55% as stated by P.W.2. It is further contended that the petitioner is aged about 29 years and due to the disability, he lost his amenities and social status, therefore, prayed to award reasonable amount for the loss sustained by him.
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No. 2567 of 2015) submits that the Tribunal awarded adequate amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is further submitted that without there being any supporting documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,50,000/- towards medical expenses, extra 5 nourishment, attendant charges and transportation and therefore, prayed to reduce the same.
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 and the challenge in both these appeals is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.
9. As regards the quantum of compensation, in order to establish his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctors, who treated him, as P.Ws.2 and 3. As per Ex.A6, injury certificate, the petitioner had sustained closed segmental fracture of shaft right femur, supra condyler with intercondyler fracture of left femur, closed fracture of left distal radius, closed comminuted fracture of both patella. P.W.2, the doctor, deposed that the petitioner underwent five surgeries and he has got reduction of movement in his left hip and knee and right knee and he is unable to perform his day-to-day activities like running squatting or any hard work and he requires future surgeries for the removal of implant and he is likely to develop arthritis and P.W.2 has assessed the disability at 6 55%. Further, P.W.3, Gastroenterologist, has stated in his evidence that the esophageal stent was removed and oesophgeocotomy was done and because of loss of an organ/esophagus and reduction of size of stomach, the petitioner is likely to have the problems of rapid satisfaction after eating a small quantity of food and rapid emptying of partly undigested food into the intestine and consequent under=nutrition and one of the consequence of rerouting of stomach is reflux of intestinal and gastric content. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the nature of fractures/injuries sustained by the petitioner as reflected in Ex.A.6 and nature of treatment undergone by him, this Court is of the view that the functional disability sustained by the petitioner can be fixed at 50%. In view of nature of disability sustained, the petitioner is entitled to loss of earnings due to disability.
10. As regards the income of the petitioner, though the petitioner has claimed that he used to earn Rs.30,000/- per month as technician in Dubai, the Tribunal has fixed his income at Rs.10,000/- per month on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce satisfactory evidence to 7 show that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month. However, considering the fact that the petitioner is having technical skills and taking into consideration the work place of the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per month. As the age of the petitioner at the time of accident was 29 years, the appropriate multiplier in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1, is '17'. Therefore, adopting the said multiplier, the loss of earnings on account of the disability comes to Rs.10,000 x 12 x 17 x 50/100 = Rs.10,20,000/-. Further, the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering; Rs.11,50,000/- towards medical expenses, transport, extra nourishment, attendant charges etc.; Rs.1,20,000/- towards loss of earning during the treatment period; and Rs.4,00,000/- for future medical and other expenses need no interference by this Court as the same were awarded by the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence brought on record. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.27,90,000/- as compensation. 1 2009 ACJ 1298 8
11. In the result, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of 2015 filed by the Insurance Company, M.A.C.M.A.No.2645 of 2015 filed by the petitioner stands allowed in part by enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.17,70,000/- to Rs.27,90,000/- to be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. Time to deposit the compensation is two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________ DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J _______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 02.03.2023 Tsr 9 HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2567 and 2645 of 2015 DATE: 02-03-2023