Telangana High Court
Rasamalla Anjaiah vs Jonnala Srinivas Reddy on 7 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3043 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Palakurthi Kiran, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and there is no representation on behalf of the respondent no.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/ petitioner aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.126 of 2010, dated 27.04.2017 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant, respondent no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of crime vehicle and respondent No.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 2 4.1. On 22.01.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., while the petitioner was proceeding to attend his mason work in Haliya village and when he proceeding by the side of Gandhi statue, one lorry bearing registration No.AP-24-TB-3779 loaded with read soil came from his back side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, as a result, he sustained crush injury to his left leg and several injuries and fractures; that immediately he was shifted to Kamala Nehru Hospital, Nagarjuna Sagar in 108-Ambulance and thereafter, he was shifted to Sunrise hospitals, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient.
4.2. The Police, Haliya Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.16/2014 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
4.3. The petitioner has filed claim petition against owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.37,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the filing of this petition till the date of realization.
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 3 4.4. It is contended that petitioner was aged about 28 years as on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a mason; that on account of accident, petitioner sustained crush injury to his left leg and his leg was amputated and he became permanently disabled and is not able to attend to his works.
5. The Respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further denied the manner of accident, nature of injuries, nature of treatment, disability suffered by the petitioner and the amount spent and registration of the crime against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is further contended that the claim is excessive and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-24-TB-3779 ?
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 4
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation. If so, to what amount?
iii) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.C1 were marked. On behalf of the respondent no.2, no witness was examined, however, attested copy of policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the oral evidence and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.15,88,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The owner of the offending vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and also erred in not awarding the future prospects; that Tribunal ought to have taken LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 5 income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- per month as he was working as mason; that Tribunal failed to award any amount towards loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life; that the disability of the petitioner has to be considered at 100% as he would not be liable to attend to his mason work during his lifetime and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on the following decisions:
i) Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma and others 1;
ii) Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2;
iii) V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi and another 3; and
iv) Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited and another 4
11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month is concerned, as per the record, it is contended that the petitioner was working as mason 1 (2015) 6 SCC 347 2 (2013) 9 SCC 54 3 (2014) 11 SCC 178 4 (2023) 3 SCC 439 LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 6 and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month prior to the accident. The appellant contended that he was working as mason as on the date of accident and in the light of amputation of his left leg, he cannot work as mason. Perusal of the record would show that the contention of the appellant that he was working as mason is not disputed by the insurance company and in fact, the Tribunal also made categorical observation to that effect. A mason can be categorized as skilled worker as it requires certain amount of skill and knowledge to work as mason. The appellant claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as mason as on the date of accident. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the relevant date of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., in considered opinion of this Court the notional income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.
12. In Sidram (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for appellant, while referring the decisions in Jagdish and Pranay Sethi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 7 "31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from compensation for future loss of income, amounts for future prospects as well. We have come across many orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed by different High Courts, taking the view that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a correct position of law. There is no justification to exclude the possibility of compensation for future prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow reading is illogical because it denies altogether the possibility of the living victim progressing further in life in accident cases -- and admits such possibility of future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
34. In Jagdish v. Mohan [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] , the victim, a carpenter, suffered permanent disablement, and his claim for compensation including for loss of future prospects was considered by a three-
Judge Bench which included, incidentally, the Judges who had decided Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] This Court held that :
(Jagdish case [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] , SCC pp. 576-
77, paras 13-15) "13. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , this Court has held that the benefit of future prospects should not be confined only to those who have a permanent job and would extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the established income should be made where the age of the victim at the time of the accident was below 40 years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 8 be entitled to an enhancement of Rs 2400 towards loss of future prospects.
14. In making the computation in the present case, the court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged in manual activities, it requires no stretch of imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing--at least in the facts of this case--can restore lost hands. But the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being. Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute entitlements under law. Our conversations about law must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as intrinsic to human dignity. ......."
13. From the above decision, in case of self-employed person with fixed wages, the actual income of the person must be enhanced for purpose of computation of compensation by 40%, where his age was below 40 years, towards future prospects. In the case on hand, the petitioner was aged 28 years as on the date of accident, an addition 40% of actual income of the petitioner can be made towards future prospects.
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 9
14. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that Tribunal ought to have considered the disability of the appellant at 100% as he cannot attend to mason work with amputated leg. Perusal of record would show that Tribunal having taken into consideration the material placed on record i.e., Ex.A7-disability certificate, which was issued by the District Medical Board, as per which, the disability of the appellant was assessed as 75% and also the evidence of Doctor, had assessed and considered the disability of the appellant at 75%. The appellant failed to place any material in support of his contention that his disability has to be assessed at 100%. In considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the assessment of the Tribunal in assessing the disability of the appellant as 75% based on the evidence, material placed on record.
15. This Court assessed the monthly income of appellant as Rs.8,000/- and the appellant is also entitled to 40% of monthly income towards future prospects as observed above. Thus, the monthly earnings of the appellant comes to Rs.11,200/- (Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-) and total compensation under the head LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 10 of permanent disability comes to Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12 x 17 x 75%).
16. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.5,13,140/-, which is the cost of artificial limb, however, the Tribunal erred in awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- only. Perusal of record would show that P.W.2, who is the Manager of Ottobock, Balakpur, Secunderabad and specialist in prosthetist and orthotist, deposed that estimated cost of artificial limb is Rs.5,13,140/-. In cross- examination, he admitted that he has not given treatment to the appellant and the minimum cost of the limb is Rs.75,000/- and that he has not received any quotation from appellant and also stated that artificial limb is also available in many Government hospitals with free of cost. Taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.4 and also the fact that the cost of artificial limb varies from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.5,13,140/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards artificial limb and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards artificial limb.
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 11
17. The compensation amount towards disability be modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no change with regard to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal on other heads.
18. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation under the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Permanent disability Rs. 17,13,600.00
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00.000.00
3 Artificial limb Rs. 4,00,000.00
4 Medical expenses Rs. 50,000.00
5 Los of earnings Rs. 20,000.00
Total: Rs.23,83,600.00
19. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation from Rs.15,88,000/- to Rs.23,83,600/- with interest at the rate of 7% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks before the Tribunal from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, if any, already deposited/paid to the appellant/petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
LNA,J MACMA No.3043 of 2017 12
20. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
_________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 07.06.2024 kkm