Telangana High Court
Kancharla Suresh vs Narendra Kumar Veduruvada And Another on 20 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1729 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- The Court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.929 of 2012, dated 30.04.2018, the claim petitioner in the above MVOP preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01.03.2012. As per the claim petitioner, on 01.03.2012 at about 3.30 PM, while the petitioner along with his brother-in-law was proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP-28TC-6615 from Kukatpally to Medak side and when reached near Ghafoor Service Centre, Gagillapur Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, Cyberabad, at that time, one Eicher bearing No.AP-28A-9025 came in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto from behind. As a result, the petitioner and his brother-in-law sustained grievous 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta and was admitted as inpatient. Police, Dundigal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP- 28A-9025. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the petitioner suffered from 100% loss of income and hence filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- initially which was subsequently enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- as per orders in I.A.No.1272 of 2015, dated 27.03.2017 along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of accident till the date of realization which is payable by Respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2- Insurance Company filed its counter denying all the averments made in the claim petition including, the manner of accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher, age, occupation and income of the petitioner, nature of injuries sustained to him and the amount incurred by him. It is also contended that the driver of the said Eicher has no valid driving license and Respondent No.1 wilfully handed over the possession of vehicle to the driver of Eicher and contravened the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and hence, the Insurance 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 company is not liable to pay any compensation and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim against it.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting injuries sustained by the petitioner-K.Suresh, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Eicher bearing No.AP-28A-9025 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?
6. Before the Tribunal, the claim petitioner himself was examined as PW1, got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A12 on their behalf. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained exparte. On behalf of 2nd respondent, no witness was examined, but, however, Ex.B1-Copy of insurance policy was marked.
7. After considering the evidence and documents available on record, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.5,10,400/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied 4 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2- Insurance company.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the appellant had proved his case by adducing cogent and convincing evidence and by relying upon Exs.A1 to A12, but the learned Tribunal without considering the same had awarded meagre amount. He also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the appellant as Rs.10,000/- instead of Rs.4,000/- per month and further contended that the learned Tribunal award meagre amounts on various heads and hence prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
10. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is, 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
POINT:
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by both sides. The appellant, who was examined as PW1, stated that when he, along with his brother Raju and his brother- in-law were proceeding in an Auto bearing No.AP 28TC 6615 towards Medak side from Kukatpally, they met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP 28A 9025. Based on a complaint, the Police, Dundigal Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.116 of 2012 under Section 337 IPC and after conducting thorough investigation, filed charge sheet against the driver of Eicher. Due to the said accident, the petitioner along with his brother-in-law sustained grievous injuries all over the body. In support of his contention, he got marked Ex.A1-Certified Copy of FIR, Ex.A2-Certified copy of charge sheet, Ex.A3-Certified copy of Medico Legal Record, Ex.A4-Discharge summary issued by NIMS hospital, Ex.A5-Outpatent medical record issued by NIMS, Ex.A6- OP card issued by NIMS, Ex.A7- Bunch of medical bills, Ex.A8-OP ticket issued by Gandhi hospital, Ex.A9-Bunch of medical bills, Ex.A10-medical prescriptions, Ex.A11-X-ray films and Ex.A12-Disability certificate. Thus from the evidence of PW1 coupled with documentary evidence under 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 Exs.A1 to A12, it is made clear that the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body in an accident that occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Eicher bearing No.AP-28A-9025.
13. To prove about the injuries sustained by the appellant, he got examined PW2, who is an Orthopaedic surgeon in Kondapur Government Area Hospital and Member of Medical Board and who deposed in his evidence that the petitioner approached him and after examining the petitioner clinically and radiologically, he assessed the disability @ 56%. He also stated that Ex.A3-injury certificate issued by NIMS Hospital, shows that the petitioner sustained closed Comminuted fracture and distal extension right humerus; Olecranon fracture right; Fracture of first metacarpal right without deficit, head injury, chest injury and other multiple injuries with lacerations and abrasions throughout the body. He also stated that due to the said disability, the petitioner cannot perform his normal duties. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he never treated the petitioner at any point of time, but he assessed the disability based on SADARA, a web-based application to measure the percentage of disability and denied the other suggestions.
7
MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018
14. Though PWs 1 & 2 were cross-examined at length, nothing worthy was elicited from them to disbelieve their evidence.
15. It is also noticed by this Court that there is variation in respect of the age of the appellant wherein, the appellant himself stated that he was 26 years old initially, but in the charge sheet it was mentioned as 38 years, and again during the course of the cross-examination, he stated that he was 41 years old. The learned Tribunal has considered the age of the appellant mentioned during the course of examination. This Court is of the considered opinion that when there is variation of ages mentioned by the petitioner, the age mentioned in the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board under Ex.A12 can be taken into consideration as the age mentioned in the Identity Card issued by Medical Board of Area Hospital, Kondapur, being same, this Court is inclined to consider the age of the appellant as 45 years.
16. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal considered the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.4,000/-. This Court, upon considering the date of accident, occupation of the appellant and the disability sustained by him, is inclined to fix the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.6,000/-. Considering the age of the appellant at the time of accident as 45 years, if 25% is taken as future prospects to the established 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 income of the appellant as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others 1 then the future monthly income of the appellant comes to Rs.7,500/- and Rs.90,000/- per annum. Since the appellant was 45 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '14' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 2 and the disability sustained by the appellant is 56%. Therefore, the total loss of income incurred by the appellant due to the said disability comes to Rs.7,05,600/-(Rs.90000 x 14 x 56%). Apart from this, the appellant is also awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for loss of amenities; Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, by the learned Tribunal which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,45,600/-.
17. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,10,400/- to Rs.7,45,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by 1 2017 ACJ 2700 2 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 9 MGP,J MACMA.No.1729 of 2018 the respondents 1 & 2 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
18. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.20.02.2024 ysk