Telangana High Court
Guniganti Gurumurt vs Shaik Mubarak on 5 February, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.661 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri P.Chandra Mouli for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel Sri A.Ramakrishna Reddy for insurance company for the respondent no.2.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.2850 of 2017, dated 28.11.2022 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 3.1. On 21.04.2017 at 7.00 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding as rider along with a pillion rider on motorcycle bearing registration No.TS-07-ET-1762 from Police lane towards Pattigadda Railway Station and when they reached Mody Ford Show-room opposite Begumpet, Hyderabad, the driver of Tipper lorry bearing registration No.TS-10-UA-2950 proceeding from Paradise side LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 2 driven the same in rash and negligent manner in high speed, lost control over the lorry and dashed the petitioner's motorcycle. As a result, both the riders fell down on the road along with the motorcycle. As a result, petitioner sustained multiple fracture injuries all over the body and was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, treated as an inpatient and then shifted to Raksha Multi Specialty Hospitals, L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, for better treatment. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient from 22.04.2017 and underwent surgery on 23.04.2017 and was discharged on 29.04.2017. The petitioner pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TS-10-UA-2950 and that there is no negligence on his part.
3.2. The Police, Begumpet P.S. registered a case in Crime No.120 of 2017 U/s.338 of IPC against the driver of the lorry. 3.3. The petitioner suffered multiple fracture injuries consisting of fracture of left shoulder, fracture of left ribs, deep laceration (3 places), head injury, face injury and multiple injuries all over the body. The petitioner contended that he is a skilled worker working as a driver with income of more than Rs.15,000/- per month. Due LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 3 to the injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident, he is unable to do the driving job and lost his source of income for the remaining part of the life. The petitioner and his family are subjected to financial hardship and mental agony and they are unable to meet the day to day expenses. The petitioner is the only earning member and his hospitalization is causing hardship to the petitioner and his family. The petitioner is the only earning member of the family and his family members are dependent on him for their maintenance. The petitioner at the age of 20 years has become permanently disabled, is bed-ridden and is paying attendant charges to do day-to-day activities. 3.4. The petitioner contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.3, who was driving the crime vehicle, the respondent No.1 is the registered owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurance company. Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 3 remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 4 occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 admitted providing insurance coverage to the lorry involved in the accident. Further, the respondent No.2 denied rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry. It is contended that respondent no.1 did not inform the insurance company about the accident, particulars of policy, date, time, place of offence, particulars of driving license of the driver and therefore, pleaded violation of Section 134(c) of the MV Act and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries to the petitioner, G.Gurumurt due to rash and negligent driving of Lorry bearing No.TS-10-UA- 2950 by its driver?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant- injured, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A7 were LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 5 marked. The respondents did not examine any witness and did not mark any document on their behalf.
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.6,70,400/- towards compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization.
8. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed due to grievous injuries sustained by the appellant. He further submitted that Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income of the appellant as Rs.8,000/-, and in fact, appellant was hale and healthy and was aged about 20 years and was skilled person being driver on which he would earn more than Rs.15,000/- per month. He submitted that Tribunal erred in not accepting functional disability @ 100% as per the evidence and also not awarding any amount towards future prospects of the disability. He further submitted that the Tribunal erred in LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 6 awarding meager amounts towards transportation, extra nourishment, pain and suffering etc. and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
9 The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards injuries sustained by the claimant and the grounds raised by the appellant are untenable and no case is made out warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration:
10. With regard to the main contention of learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal failed to award compensation towards 100% functional disability, the Tribunal had considered the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.Ch.Sulapani, who treated the appellant and the material placed on record. According to him, the appellant suffered 30% disability and to that effect, he issued Ex.A6- Disability Certificate; that due to left shoulder fracture and left rib fractures, P.W.2 stated that earning capacity would be reduced by 70%. However, the Tribunal held that since the appellant is still young age and capable of switching to other modes of earning LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 7 other than driving and therefore, there is no need to take the functional disability as 70%. In view of the above, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards disability and needs no interference by this Court.
11. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the Tribunal on taking into consideration Ex.A2-charge sheet, as per which, the deceased was a driver, had assessed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.8,000/- per month. The contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that the appellant was hale and healthy and was aged only 20 years and was skilled person being driver, on which he was earning more than a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month prior to the multiple fracture injuries sustained by him in a road accident.
12. In view of the above, in considered opinion of this Court, the monthly income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.10,000/- in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the age and profession, the period of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., and therefore, the monthly income of the deceased is liable to be modified accordingly.
LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 8
13. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellant with regard to awarding of compensation on other counts, needs no interference by this Court since the Tribunal had rightly assessed and awarded the amount on each count. Conclusion:
14. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of income Rs.6,48,000/-
(Rs.10,000/- x 12 x 18 x 30%)
2 Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3 Medical Bills Rs.87,000/-
4 Extra nourishment Rs.10,000/-
5 Transportation Rs. 5,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.8,00,000/-
paid:
15. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.6,70,400/- to Rs.8,00,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate awarded by the Tribunal, from the date of the claim petition LNA,J MACMA No.661 of 2023 9 till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 05.02.2024 kkm