1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2752 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 20.01.2015, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2718 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 07.06.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., the petitioner along with his family members were proceeding in the vehicle bearing No.AP 25X 3323 from Tirupathi to 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015 Thippapur village and on the way when it reached the outskirts of Rangareddyguda Village, the driver of the said vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed a lorry from its behind and caused the accident, wherein the petitioner received grievous injuries and immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, and thereafter he took treatment privately and incurred a lot of expenditure and in spite of the same, he is not cured completely and suffering with a permanent disability. The petitioner was aged about 45 years and hale and healthy at the time of the accident and earning Rs.6,000/- per month as a Goldsmith. Hence, the claim petition.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte and Respondent No.2 filed counter before the Tribunal, denying all the allegations raised by the petitioner and submittig that both drivers of the vehicles have no valid driving licenses and the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition with costs.
3
RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents and marked Ex.B1, which is the copy of Policy.
6. On appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the petition in part by granting compensation of Rs.5,65,500/- to the petitioner payable by respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month despite the petitioner proving that he was working as a goldsmith and claiming that the income of the petitioner deserves to be enhanced. He further contended that the Tribunal failed to award future prospects @ 25 % on the income of the petitioner, and the Tribunal granted a meagre amount 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015 in respect of transportation charges and extra-nourishment and no amount was awarded towards pain and suffering and attendant charges. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company had contended that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence with regard to his age, profession, let alone his income. He further contended that assuming that the petitioner is really a goldsmith, the injuries sustained by him to his legs cause no hindrance to the petitioner to carry on his work as a goldsmith. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. A careful perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal goes to show that it rightly considered the age of the petitioner as 51 years at the time of the accident, but the multiplier "10" is to be substituted with "11" as per Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1. It is further observed that the Tribunal fixed the monthly 1 2009 ACJ 1208(SC) 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015 earnings of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month for the reason that the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence. However, the petitioner pleaded that he was working as a Goldsmith and earning Rs.6,000/- per month, but nothing is elicited by the respondent/Insurance Company disproving the occupation of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Transport Service2 held as under:
"Having regard to nature of job that deceased was performing as skilled polisher, it would be just and proper to take his monthly income as Rs.5,000/-...."
Hence, it would be just and proper if the income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month keeping in view of his occupation being a skilled worker. The Tribunal failed to award future prospects to the income of the petitioner and awarded meagre/no compensation under various heads.
2 2014 (1) ALD 116 (SC) 6 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
11. The petitioner was granted Rs.5,65,500/- and the same is interfered with in the following manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by the Tribunal this Court Monthly income of Rs.4,500/- Rs.5,000/-
the petitioner
Annual income Rs.54,000/- Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000
(Rs.4,500/- x 12) x 12)
Future prospects Nil Rs.6,000/- (10% to be
taken as per Pranay
Sethi)
Annual Income + Rs.54,000/- + Nil Rs.66,000/-
Future prospects
Percentage of 100% 100%
Disability
Multiplier 10 "11" (As per Sarla
Verma)
Loss of future Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.7,26,000/-
earnings (54,000/- x 10) (Rs.66,000/- x 11)
excluding future including future
prospects. prospects
Transportation Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
charges
Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering Nil Rs.40,000/-
Medical bills Rs.3,500/- Rs.3,500/-
Loss of amenities Nil Rs.25,000/-
Future operation Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.5,65,500/- Rs.8,54,500/-
12. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.8,54,500/-
towards compensation.
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.6,50,000/-, invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid 7 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015 down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh3, and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed amount.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,65,500/- to Rs.8,54,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh, Fifty Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment by giving due credit to the amount already deposited if any. The petitioner is directed to pay the deficit Court fee on the enhanced compensation and upon such payment, he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of compensation as the accident occurred in the year 2013. There shall be no order as to costs.
3
MANU/SC/0480/2013 8 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015 As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 15th March, 2023 BDR/PNS