Telangana High Court
Shaik Raheem, Adilabad Dist vs Md. Tajuddin, Adilabad Dist And 2 Others on 16 April, 2024
SWHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1052 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant- claimant dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.323 of 2015, dated 06.12.2016 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. Appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 and 2 herein are the driver and owner of the crime and respondent no.3 herein is the insurance company. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that the petitioner is aged about 29 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per month and Rs.100/- batta per day as cleaner of lorry. On 15.11.2014, the petitioner is proceeding on lorry bearing registration No.AP-15-TA-3744 from Vani to Bellamapally and about 3:30 a.m, when the said lorry reached at the out skirts of Pegadapalli village, the driver of said lorry drove the vehicle 2 in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which, the said lorry dashed another lorry bearing registration No.AP- 15-X-1230 in opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner was struck in the cabin of the lorry and sustained fractures and injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Bellampally and thereafter, he was admitted as inpatient on 15.11.2014 in Fortune Medcare Hospital, Karimnagar and discharged on 24.11.2014; that he spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation. Due to the accident, the petitioner lost his earning capacity and suffered pain and agony. Hence, the petitioner filed petition claiming Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the claimant. It is contended that respondent No.1-driver has no valid driving licence and thereby, violated terms and conditions of insurance policy, as such, respondent No.3 is not 3 liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether claimant sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 15.11.2014 at about 3.30 a.m., at the outskirts of Pegadapalli Village?
2) Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-15-TA-3744 ?
3) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation if so how much and against whom of the respondents?
4) To what relief?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, none was examined and no document was marked.
7. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,22,000/- towards compensation to the claimant payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
4
8. Heard learned counsel Sri S.Surender Reddy for the appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent no.3-insurance company.
9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- and awarded very meagre amount towards compensation. Hence, he prayed the Court to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company-respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned award passed by the Tribunal stating that after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed the Court to dismiss the appeal.
11. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- is concerned, perusal of record 5 would show that the Tribunal considering the period of accident period of accident, had assessed his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, period of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., this Court is of opinion the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, the same needs to be modified to the above extent. Since the petitioner is prevented from attending to work for more than six months, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 6) and petitioner is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards transportation and attendant charges and the same need to be modified to that extent.
12. With regard to the compensation awarded on other heads, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has rightly awarded the amounts and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the same.
13. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
6
Sl.No. Head Compensation
awarded
1. Loss of income (Rs.6,000/- x 6) Rs. 36,000/-
2. Pain and agony Rs. 50,000/-
3. Expenditure for treatment Rs.1,36,900/-
4. Transportation & attendant charges Rs. 25,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.2,47,900/- rounded
off to Rs.2,48,000/-
14. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.2,22,000/- to Rs.2,48,000/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5%, from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, duly adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited by the respondents. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
____________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 16.04.2024 Dsu/kkm