Telangana High Court
Kumari Ajmera Sujatha vs M.A. Azeem on 24 January, 2024
Author: G. Radha Rani
Bench: G. Radha Rani
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI
M.A.C.M.A.No.3899 of 2012
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and decree dated 07.07.2005 passed in O.P.No.348 of 2000 by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT") (IV Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. The appellant was a minor claimant aged about 16 years. She filed a claim petition represented by her natural mother under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident.
3. The appellant was a tribal girl, R/o.Secunderapoor (V) Thanda under Gram Panchayat of Puppalapalli (V) of Jakranpalli Mandal, Nizamabad District. As per the claim petition filed by her, on 26.10.1999 at 04:30 PM, while she was crossing National Highway No.7 in Secunderapoor Village shivar, a Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP-25-A-3826 driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from Dichpalli side and hit the petitioner, due to which she sustained fracture injuries to her left leg and a blunt injury to her left ear and injuries on various other parts of her body. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, 2 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 Nizamabad. The petitioner thereafter had taken treatment at a private hospital at Pragathi Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where she was operated and rods were inserted in her left leg. The petitioner contended that she was working as an agricultural laborer and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month, she sustained permanent disability due to the accident. As such, claimed compensation from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP-25-A-3826.
4. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.
5. The respondent No.2 filed counter contending that the petitioner was crossing the road without noticing the vehicle and contributed to the accident and called for strict proof of the petition averments and that the driver of the scooter was holding a valid and effective driving license by the date of the accident. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company also sought protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
6. The learned Chairman, MACT, Nizamabad after framing issues caused enquiry. The claimant examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 on her behalf. The case sheet issued by Government Hospital, Nizamabad was marked as Ex.X1 and the case sheet issued by Pragathi Hospital, Nizamabad was marked as Ex.X2. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by respondent No.2. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, 3 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 the learned Chairman, MACT, Nizamabad held that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the scooter bearing No.AP- 25-A-3826 and that the respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.
7. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considering that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries awarded Rs.10,000/- for the two grievous injuries and Rs.4,000/- for the four simple injuries. The Tribunal awarded Rs.16,000/- towards medical bills, Rs.10,000/- for conservative treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income for a period of six months considering the notional income of the injured claimant as Rs.1,500/- per month under the Minimum Wages Act.. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment together. In total, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 9 % from the date of petition till the date of deposit.
8. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the appellant - claimant preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal did not appreciate the fracture and other injuries sustained by the claimant, the amounts incurred towards treatment, transportation, extra nourishment, attendant charges, lodging etc., The Tribunal failed to award compensation under all the heads. No proper 4 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 multiplier was applied and prayed to modify the award and decree dated 07.07.2005 and to award just compensation.
9. Heard Sri K.S.Mahender Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and Smt.I.Maamu Vani, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant - claimant contended that the petitioner was working as milk and vegetable vendor as per her evidence and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. But, the Tribunal considered her income as only Rs.1,500/- per month. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 1, a vegetable vendor is considered as capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month. No future prospects were considered by the Tribunal. The amounts awarded towards loss of earnings, pain and suffering, grievous injuries need to be enhanced. No amount was awarded towards attendant charges, which also need to be considered and prayed to enhance the compensation.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 - Insurance Company on the other hand contended that no doctor was examined by the claimant in proof of the documents filed by her. No future prospects can be awarded when there is 1 (2014) 2 SCC 735 5 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 no disability sustained by the claimant. The amounts awarded by the Tribunal were in consonance with the Second Schedule appended to the Motor Vehicles Act under Section 163-A. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering apart from awarding Rs.10,000/- for the two grievous injuries and Rs.4,000/- for the four simple injuries, which was under
the same head, as such, the same would need to be adjusted. There was no such head as conservative treatment to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-. The interest granted @ 9 % per annum was not in accordance with the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and prayed to reduce the interest to 6 % on the amount enhanced if any.
12. Perused the record.
13. The claimant examined herself as PW.1. She became major by the date of her giving evidence. She stated that on 26.10.1999 at about 04:30 PM while she was going to Secunderapoor Thanda on National Highway No.7 on foot, a scooter bearing No.AP-25-A-3826 hit her and ran over her left leg, due to which she sustained crush injury to her left leg and injury to her left ear and injuries on the left side of forehead and right side of forehead and on her right hand wrist. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, later she took treatment in a private hospital i.e. Pragathi Hospital for a period of one month and spent Rs.2,00,000/-. An operation was conducted 6 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 on her left leg and a rod was inserted. On account of the injury to her left ear, she was unable to hear properly. She had also taken treatment by an ENT specialist. She stated that she was working as a milk and vegetable vendor prior to the accident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by the date of the accident. On account of the injury, she was unable to work and earn as earlier.
14. She filed certified copy of FIR as Ex.A1, the certified copy of the injury certificate as Ex.A2, the certified copy of the charge-sheet as Ex.A3, the prescriptions of M.J.Hospital, Perkit, Armoor as Ex.A4, the medical bills as Ex.A5, the certificate issued by the Sarpanch in proof of her occupation as milk and vegetable vendor as Ex.A6, photo copy of Insurance Policy as Ex.A7 and X-rays as Ex.A8.
15. The claimant had not examined any doctor in proof of the certificates issued by them. However, considering her evidence and the injury certificate issued by the District Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Armoor which would show that the petitioner sustained fracture to her left leg, tibia and fibula and a grievous blunt injury to the tymphanic membrane of left ear, which were termed as grievous and four simple injuries to her left leg, right leg, fore head and left elbow, and as she was admitted as in- patient in a private hospital for a period of one month and was operated there and her fractures to left leg were fixed by inserting rods, as per her evidence, it 7 Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- each to the two grievous injuries and Rs.10,000/- @ Rs.2,500/- to the four simple injuries sustained by her under the head "pain and suffering".
16. Even if the petitioner is considered as an agricultural laborer, her earnings can be considered @ Rs.3,000/- per month considering the date of the accident in the year 1999. As such, the loss of income for a period of six months can be assessed as Rs.3,000/- x 6 = Rs.18,000/-.
17. As the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.16,000/- towards medical bills considering the documents marked under Ex.A5, this Court considers that no interference is required under the said head. As the evidence of the petitioner would disclose that rods were inserted in her left leg for fixing the fractures of left tibia and left fibula and for removal of rods a future operation is required to be conducted, an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is also considered as reasonable. However, as the Tribunal had not awarded any amount towards attendant charges and as some of the family members of the minor claimant might have attended her during the period of her admission in the hospital and subsequently during the period of her recovery, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards attendant charges. As the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment together, it is considered fit to enhance the same to Rs.2,000/- each under these heads. 8
Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012
18. The compensation entitled by the petitioner under various heads is as follows:
S. No. Heads Compensation Awarded
1. Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/- (@ Rs.20,000/-
each for the two grievous
injuries)
Rs.10,000/- (@ Rs.2,500/-
each for the four simple
injuries.
2. Loss of Income Rs.18,000/- (@ Rs.3,000/-
per month for a period of six
months)
3. Medical Bills Rs.16,000/-
4. Future Medical Expenses Rs.10,000/-
5. Attendant Charges Rs.5,000/-
6. Transportation Rs.2,000/-
7. Extra Nourishment Rs.2,000/-
Total: 1,03,000/-
19. As such, it is considered fit to enhance the compensation from Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,03,000/- which is considered as just and reasonable.
20. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.1,03,000/- with interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above amount after deducting the amount deposited if any earlier within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount.
9
Dr.GRR, J macma_3899_2012 No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this appeal if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ Dr. G. RADHA RANI, J Date: 24th January, 2024 Nsk.