HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1082 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri.A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, FAC:Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.1214 of 2010, dated 24.11.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of compensation.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
4. On 31.12.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., while the appellant was crossing the road at Chintalkunta and going near a Pan-shop and in the meanwhile, a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-TJ- 3190 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the appellant, as a result, the appellant fell down and received grievous injuries and other injuries all over the body and immediately, he was shifted to Kaminent Hospital, L.B.Nagar, LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 2 Hyderabad, where he took treatment and incurred lot of expenditure and in spite of the same, the appellant did not recover completely. The Police, L.B.Nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime No.1/2010 against the rider of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
5. The claimant, i.e., the appellant filed claim petition against the owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the accident till the date of realization.
6. The appellant was aged about 49 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and as a lorry driver, he was earning an income of Rs.20,000/- per month and contributing the same for the welfare and maintenance of the family and due to accident, he was suffering with permanent disability and thereby, the petitioner was unable to do the work and lost income source.
7. The respondent No.1, the owner of the motor vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying allegations in the claim petition, that the rider of LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 3 the offending motor cycle at the time of the accident was having valid driving license and that there was no negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle and on the other hand, the accident took place due to the negligence of the appellant, who crossed the road without taking minimum precautions and hence, the claim petition is liable to be dismissed.
8. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant examined P.Ws.1 to 4 on his behalf and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X5 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.
9. On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred reuslting in injuries to the petitioner. K.Venkateshwar Rao, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor vehicle (Bajaj Pulsar Bearing Registration No.AP-29-TJ-3190), by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
iii) To what relief ?
LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 4
10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant/appellant, P.Ws.1 & 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 & X1 to X5 were marked. To disprove the claim of the claimant, on behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.
11. The MACT, after considering the evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP- 29-TJ-3190 and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,63,500/- to the claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of depositing of amount. The owner of the vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondents 1 and 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have considered the income of the appellant as claimed by him i.e., Rs.20,000/- per month as he was the owner and driver of the lorry and to prove the same, P.W.4 who is an officer of Finance company was examined on his behalf, who deposed in his evidence that appellant purchased the lorry from him and running the same. He further LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 5 contended that the MACT has failed to consider loss of earning capacity of the appellant at 100% as the appellant cannot drive any vehicle as he sustained permanent disability. To that extent, P.W.2-Doctor was examined, who deposed that appellant received fracture injuries to both bones of left leg and fracture of left hand and there was shortening of left leg by ½ inch and issued Ex.A6- disability certificate. The MACT has also awarded lesser amount with regard to the extra nourishment and transportation, clothing etc.
13. With regard to income of the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was paying monthly installment at Rs.15,264/- for the loan obtained from finance company and maintaining his family members and having own vehicle and prayed this Court to consider the monthly income of the appellant at Rs.25,000/-. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gurpreet Kaur and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and others 1.
1 2023 ACJ 279 LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 6
14. Learned standing counsel appearing for insurance company submitted that in the absence of any proof placed on record to show the income of the appellant as Rs.20,000/- per month, the MACT has rightly considered the income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/- and just and reasonable amount was awarded towards disability for the injuries sustained in the accident, and that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award of the MACT and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration:
15. With regard to monthly earnings of the claimant/appellant, MACT considered the monthly income of the claimant/appellant as Rs.6,000/-. The claimant/appellant contended that he was getting a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as driver-cum-owner of lorry. The claimant/appellant also got examined the officer of Sri Ram City Union Finance Ltd., as P.W.4 and got marked extract of ledger as Ex.X5 to support his contention that he was paying a sum of Rs.15,264/- per month towards installment for the loan obtained by the appellant/ claimant from said finance company.
LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 7
16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Kaur (supra), while computing the monthly income, has taken into consideration that the deceased was paying monthly installment of Rs.11,550/-, maintaining a family and also affording a vehicle and fixed income at Rs.25,000/- per month.
17. The facts in Gurpreet Kaur (supra) are similar to the facts of the present case. Considering the evidence placed by the appellant/claimant and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Kaur, in considered view of this Court, monthly income of the appellant/claimant can be considered as Rs.20,000/-.
18. Monthly income of the appellant/claimant is quantified at Rs.20,000/-, which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. Since the appellant/claimant was aged 49 years as on the date of accident, the MACT correctly applied the multiplier '13' as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2.
2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 8
19. With regard to quantum of compensation, taking into consideration the disability of the appellant as 25%, the total loss of disability comes to Rs.8,40,000/- ( i.e., Rs.2,40,000 x 25% x 14). Conclusion:
20. In view of the above, the appellant/claimant is entitled to the following compensation:
Sl.No. Head Amount awarded
1 Loss of disability Rs. 8,40,000/-
2 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
3 Medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
4 Medicines and other Rs. 2,000/-
investigations
5 Transport charges Rs. 1,000/-
Total: Rs. 8,73,000/-
21. The Appeal is allowed partly by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,63,500/- to Rs.8,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 9 if any, already paid to the claimants. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
[[ ____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015 10 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY M.A.C.M.A.NO.1082 OF 2015 Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm