1 RRN,J
MACMA No.99 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.99 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree dt.04.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.418 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2010 at about 4.30 p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No. AP-25-M-5209 towards Perkit from Mamidipally and when he reached Annapurna Order Mess, the Tractor & Trolley bearing No.AP-25- Q-7886 & AP-25-Q-7986 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner, due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Due to the said accident, his right leg below the knee was amputated and he 2 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015 incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. As such, due to his disability, he lost his earning capacity and future prospects. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.
4. The respondents filed separate counters denying the petition allegations and mainly contended that the accident was as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.
6. After considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by granting Rs.3,64,165/- to the petitioner towards compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation, the present appeal.
7. Heard both sides and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not earning at the time of the accident only because the petitioner admitted that he was pursuing his Intermediate. He further contended that 3 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015 despite the Tribunal observed that the petitioner sustained 60% disability vide Ex.A14 issued by the Medical Board, it failed to fix the notional income of the petitioner and calculate the loss of future earnings using the multiplier method, but simply awarded a lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head "disability." He further contended that compensation awarded under other heads is very meagre and prayed to enhance the same by allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would contend that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the compensation in spite of no evidence being adduced by the petitioner with regard to his income, yet the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount towards disability. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. As seen from the evidence on record, it is proved that the petitioner sustained grievous injury leading to amputation of right leg below the knee in view of Ex.A14 coupled with the testimony of PW.3, and the Tribunal awarded lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards such disability which is not justified. This Court is inclined to fix the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- p.m. in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa vs Manager, Royal 4 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015 Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1. To this, 40% future prospects are added as the petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of the accident (contrary not proved). Thus, the monthly income of the petitioner is Rs.4,500/- + 40% = Rs.6,300/- and annually it comes to Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12) and for the purpose of calculation of loss of future earnings, the same is to be multiplied with '18' as per National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2 and 60% of such amount is to be considered in respect of disability i.e. Rs.75,600 x 18 x 60% = Rs. 8,16,480/-.
11. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.37,165/- towards medical bills; Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment and attendant charges and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.9,03,645/-. Though the claimed amount is Rs.8,00,000/- invoking the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid 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.
1( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
3
MANU/SC/0480/2013
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.99 of 2015
12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,64,165/- to Rs.9,03,645/- (Rupees Nine Lakh, Three thousand, Six hundred and Forty Five only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to pay the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 15th day of March, 2023 BDR