THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1320 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and decree in M.V.O.P.No.1312 of 2006 dated 22.07.2009 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT") - cum- Principal District Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.1,81,544/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,00,000/- as claimed by him.
2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He stated that he was aged 19 years, was a student and was also doing business and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. On 15.08.2006, he along with his friend proceeded on a Hero Honda motorcycle to visit Jurala Project and on their return when reached near Maisamma Temple at the outskirts of Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District at about 07:30 PM, a tractor bearing No.AP- 22-E-2880 came in opposite direction with only having a left side light. By considering it as a two-wheeler, the claimant who was riding the motorcycle crossed it and hit the tractor, due to which he sustained head injury and the pillion rider also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, both the claimant and the pillion rider were shifted to Government Hospital, Atmakur 2 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011 and from there the claimant was shifted to Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital (for short SKN Hospital), Kachiguda, Hyderabad for better treatment. The claimant submitted that on the complaint lodged by his father, the Police of PS Atmakur registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2006 against the driver of the Tractor bearing No.AP-22-E-2880. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the tractor.
3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
4. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments. The respondent No.2 called for strict proof of the manner of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant, his age and earnings and the amount spent by the claimant towards medical expenses. He further contended that the driver of the tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. The compensation claimed was excessive, exorbitant and out of proportion.
5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got examined the Neuro Surgeon and Director of Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.C1 were marked on behalf of the claimant.
6. No oral evidence was adduced by respondent No.2. The copy of the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1.
3
Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011
7. On considering the evidence of PW.1 and the documents marked as Exs.A1 to A4, the certified copy of FIR, Medico Legal Record, certified copy of the charge-sheet and the discharge card issued by SKN Hospital, the Tribunal opined that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-E-2880.
8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the age of the claimant as 19 years and his earnings as Rs.2,000/- per month as business man at Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District and considered his income as Rs.24,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards his personal expenses, considered the income as Rs.16,000/-and by applying multiplier "16" as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and assessing the disability as 20% as against the evidence of PW.2 that he sustained 40% disability, awarded compensation for continuing permanent disability at Rs.51,200/- and considered the loss of earnings for a period of three (03) months during the treatment and awarded Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,11,844/- towards medical expenses incurred by the claimant and awarded Rs.2,500/-towards transportation and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, awarded an amount of Rs.1,81,544/- with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and held the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the claimant.
4
Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011
9. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation only to an extent of Rs.1,81,544/- as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the disability sustained by the claimant as 40% instead of 20% and ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses as against the sum of Rs.1,11,844/- and though the claimant incurred a sum of Rs.23,470/- towards transportation to the Hospital, awarded only a sum of Rs.2,500/- and not awarded any amounts towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. Heard Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
11. As this appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court considers it fit to limit its observations on the said count.
12. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. He stated his age as 19 years by the date of the accident on 15.08.2006 and that he was a student and was also doing business. He had not stated that what he was studying or what business he was doing either in the claim petition or in his evidence affidavit. In his cross-examination, he stated that he completed his intermediate course and 5 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011 stated that his father was running a medical shop at Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District and he was looking after the medical shop business of his father and was not running any business on his own.
13. However, as the notional income of a labour was even considered as Rs.4,500/- per month, it is considered fit to take the notional income of the injured claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would disclose that the claimant sustained head injury with frontal depressed fracture with frontal contusion and right iliac crest fracture. The discharge summary, marked as Ex.A4 also would disclose that a surgery was conducted for the right frontal depressed fracture and elevation was done under general anesthesia.
14. PW.2 stated that the claimant also sustained a hip bone fracture of right iliac crest, the brain contusion was grievous in nature and required long term treatment for recovery and he was advised medication to prevent from fits for three (03) years and had taken up treatment regularly as out-patient. He stated that because of the head injury, the patient sometimes might have loss of memory and uninhibited behavior and assessed the disability of the claimant as 40%.
15. Considering the evidence of PW.2, the functional disability sustained by the petitioner also can be considered as 40%. Further, as no future prospects are added, considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India 6 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011 Assurance Company Limited v. Gajender Yadav and Others 1 and Lalan D. @ Lal and Another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2, as loss of future prospects shall also be considered in cases of partial and permanent disability and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 3, considering the injured as a self-employed person and the age of the petitioner being 19 years, 40% of his income is added towards his future prospects. Hence, the income of injured claimant can be considered as Rs.4,500 + Rs.1800/- (40% of Rs.4,500/-) = Rs.6,300/-. The Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the claimant. But, as no amount can be deducted in injury cases, it is considered that the Tribunal committed an irregularity in deducting the said amount. The Tribunal had taken multiplier "16" as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, but as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, multiplier "18" is applicable for the age of the claimant at 19 years. As such, the loss of income due to the disability sustained by the claimant can be assessed as Rs.6,300/- x 12 x 18 x 40% = Rs.5,44,300/-.
16. The claimant filed in-patient bill for an amount of Rs.98,917/- towards his admission in SKN Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad from 15.08.2006 to 1 (2018) 11 SCC 630 2 (2020) 9 SCC 805 3 (2017) 16 SCC 680 4 (2009) 6 SCC 121 7 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011 28.08.2006 and also filed a bunch of other medical bills and bills for transportation to the Hospital for an amount of Rs.1,35,214/- (including the amount of Rs.98,917/-). Hence, it is considered fit to award the above amount of Rs.1,35,214/- towards medical expenses and transportation.
17. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Considering the head injury and hip bone fracture sustained by the claimant, the loss of income can be assessed for a period of six months and can be taken as Rs.4,500/- x 6 = Rs.27,000/-.
18. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As the claimant was a young boy of 19 years of age and a surgery for brain was conducted on him and as he had to take treatment for a period of three years for prevention of fits and there was a chance of loss of memory as stated by PW.2, the petitioner was bound to suffer a lot of pain and suffering. As such, it is considered fit to enhance the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.25,000/- under this head.
19. As some family members might have attended to him during the period of his treatment at SKN Hospital at Kachiguda, Hyderabad and also accompanied him for his follow-up treatment from his native place Atmakur to Hyderabad every time, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards 8 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011 attendant charges. As no amount is awarded towards extra nourishment, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the said head.
20. As such, the claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads as follows:
S.No. Conventional Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Loss of income due to permanent Rs.5,44,320/-
disability
2. Medical Expenses and Transportation Rs.1,35,214/-
3. Loss of earnings during the period of Rs.27,000/-
treatment (for a period of six months)
4. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
6. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/-
Total: Rs.7,46,534/-
21. Though, the claimant claimed only an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, as there is no restriction to award more than the amount claimed by the claimant, which is considered as just and reasonable, as per the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and Others 5 and Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways 6 and 5-Judge Bench Judgment of this Court in Adam Indur Muttemma and Others v. Rathod Reddia and Others 7 , it is considered fit to award the compensation of Rs.7,46,534/-.5
(2003) 2 SCC 274 6 (2014) 3 SCC 210 7 2015 (4) ALD 585 9 Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011
22. As the Tribunal had awarded interest only @ 6 % per annum, it is considered fit to enhance the same to 7.5 % per annum.
23. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. filed by the injured claimant is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,81,544/-awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.7,46,534/- with costs and interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the said amount after deducting the amount deposited if any within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and on such deposit, the injured claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if any, shall stand closed.
____________________ Dr. G.RADHA RANI, J Date: 4th September, 2023 Nsk.