THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 OF 2014
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the award dt.02.07.2014, passed in O.P. No.959 of 2008 by the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge: Mahila Court-cum-XIX Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (for short "the Court below").
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming the compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him. It is stated that on 25.09.2007 at 11 pm., while the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider along with his friend on a scooter bearing No.AP28-A-8746 towards Amberpet and when they reached near Gandhi Statue, the offending auto bearing No.AP28-X-8968 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter on which the appellant was travelling and consequently, he fell on the road and sustained grievous injury on his right leg. Immediately, the appellant was shifted to Osmania General Hospital and was treated as an inpatient from 26.09.2007 to 02.10.2007. At the time of the 2 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014 accident, the appellant was working as Marketing Executive, drawing a monthly salary of Rs.6,200/- and due to the said accident, he became a permanently disabled person. Hence the claim petition.
3. The 1st respondent did not contest the petition and the second respondent filed a written statement denying the allegations made in the petition.
4. To prove his case, the appellant got examined PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
5. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Court below allowed the O.P. in part by awarding compensation of Rs.2,47,800/- to the appellant to be paid by the respondents. Aggrieved by the quantum, the present appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner.
6. Heard Sri Koduru Ravinder Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant, Sri Ramachandra Reddy Gadi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the record.
3 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/petitioner inter alia contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding just compensation to the appellant and also grossly erred in granting meagre interest and considering the documents under Exs.P3 to P6, the Court below ought to have considered them in arriving at the income of the appellant. Hence, prays to allow the appeal.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Insurance Company inter alia contended that the author of Ex.A5 Salary Certificate was not examined and the doctor who issued EX.A4 disability was not examined. He also contended that the Court Below was justified in passing the impugned order, which calls for no interference by this Court. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
9. The Court below assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.6,000/-p.m. as against Rs.6,200/- which is the claim of the appellant through Ex.A5 salary certificate. This Court is of the considered view that the assessment made by the Court below is not on the lower side and is reasonable. Hence the same is not altered. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent contended that the Court below ought not to have considered Ex. A4 disability 4 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014 certificate as it bears the words "for non judicial purpose" and as such the same cannot be relied upon, this contention is rejected as it is not in dispute that the appellant has undergone the said amputation and the respondent no.2 cannot resist such fact. However, the compensation granted under other heads deserves to be enhanced as they are meagre despite the petitioner proving that he suffered with 40% permanent disablement and they are depicted as hereunder:
Head Amount awarded by Amount awarded by
the Court below this Court
Loss of earnings Rs.18,000/- Rs.20,000/-
Transportation Rs.2,000/- Rs.2,200/-
Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/-
Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.30,000/-
and loss of amenities
Medical bills Rs.7,800/- Rs.7,800/-
Loss of future Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.2,50,000/-
earnings
Total Rs.2,47,800/- Rs.3,20,000/-
10. In all, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced
compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand Only). The Court below awarded 9% interest on the compensation, however, this Court is time and again granting 7.5% interest on the compensation amount and the interest 5 RRN,J M.A.C.M.A.No.3538 of 2014 portion. As such the interest portion awarded by the Court below is liable to be reduced from 9% to 7.5%.
11. Accordingly, this MACMA is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Court below from Rs.2,47,800/- to Rs.3,20,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs and Twenty Thousand Only) with interest at 7.5% p.a from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondents shall deposit the amount with proportionate costs and interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such a deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. However, There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J 16th day of March, 2023 PNS