Telangana High Court
Satla Veeraiah vs Jagarapu Ravi , Jayyaram Ravi And ... on 22 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2995 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the compensation of Rs.85,000/- granted by the Tribunal in O.P.No.654 of 2004, dated 29-11-2005, which is meager, though the claim was made for Rs.2,00,000/- and to enhance the same.
2. The appellant /claimant is the injured. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and insurer of the offending auto.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Accident is not disputed by either of the parties. The only dispute is regarding compensation amount. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant would submit that on 25-01-2004 when the claimant was travelling in the auto he has received the following injuries:
1. Fracture medial and lateral mallelous bones of right ankle.2
2. Un-disputed surgical neck fracture humerous of right shoulder.
3. Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of chest right side.
4. Lacerated wound of 10 x 2 cms over right shoulder.
The said injures are not disputed by the Insurance Company. However, certification of PW-2 / Doctor stating that the disability is 40% cannot be accepted.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company would submit that merely filing Ex.A-25, which is copy of Heavy Motor Driving Licence of appellant / claimant, is not suffice to infer that he was working as Driver and earning Rs.6,000/- per month.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant would submit that lower Court has granted a meagre amount of Rs.150/- per day to the claimant, who was working as Lorry Driver. He has produced Heavy Motor Driving Licence of appellant. He would further submit that according to PW-2 / Doctor, appellant is having 40% disability which is post traumatic stiffness of right 3 shoulder and discomfort of right ankle joint. In the said condition he cannot continue to pursue his profession as Driver. Stiffness of right shoulder and discomfort of right ankle joint would totally come in the way of driving and the disability has to be considered at 100%.
7. Doctor - PW-2 assessed the disability at 40%. The injuries which were received by the claimant are 3 fractures. Admittedly, the finding of the Doctor - PW-2, who has treated the injured - claimant and also assessed the disability cannot be overlooked only for the reason of PW-2 not being a member of the Board. He is a competent Doctor and he can as well assess the disability factor of a patient. Accordingly, disability as certified by PW-2 can be considered while granting compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in Rani and others v. National Insurance Company Limited and others 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the situation where the notional income of the claimant 1 (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 492 4 was enhanced from Rs.3,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per month finding fault with the order of High Court.
9. In the present case, right from the beginning it is the case of the petitioner that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month working as Lorry Driver. He has also filed his Heavy Motor Driving Licence. Facts of the present case differ. As claimed by the petitioner / claimant, his income can be considered as Rs.6,000/- per month.
10. In the said circumstances, it can be reasonably concluded that an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month can be taken as the income of the deceased.
11. Further, PW2 - doctor examined on behalf of claimant, specifically stated that there was 40% disability due to post traumatic stiffness of right shoulder and discomfort of right ankle joint. In the said condition he cannot continue to pursue his profession as Driver. Stiffness of right shoulder and discomfort of right ankle joint would totally come in the way of driving. Therefore, the permanent disability can be considered as 40%.
5
12. Therefore the loss of future income on account of 40% disability comes to Rs.6,04,800/-.
Actual income of the claimant Rs.6,000 p.m.
Add: Future prospects (40%) Rs.2,400
____________
Loss of income per month Rs.8,400/-
Since the petitioner is aged 38 years the relevant multiplier '15'. Loss of earnings due to 40% disability :
= 8,400 x 12 x 40/100 x 15 = 6,04,800/-.
13. Further, the compensation granted by the Tribunal towards medical bills, pain and suffering, transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment is enhanced. Medical expenditure Rs.70,000/-, pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-, transportation Rs.5,000/-, attendant charges Rs.15,000/- and extra nourishment Rs.10,000/-.
14. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.7,29,800/-
Loss of earnings due to 40% disability Rs.6,04,800
Medical expenses Rs. 70,000
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
Transportation Rs. 5,000
6
Attendant charges Rs. 15,000
Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000
_____________
Rs.7,29,800/-
_____________
15. Accordingly, MACMA is allowed and the compensation granted by the Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced from Rs.85,000/- to Rs.7,29,800/-with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant has to pay the deficit Court fee or the Tribunal may deduct the amount required for the purpose of Court fee from the amount awarded to the claimant after respondents deposits the amount. On such deposit, the appellant/ claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
__________________ K. SURENDER, J April 22, 2024 PN