Telangana High Court
National Insurance Co Ltd vs P Jangaiah And Another on 24 June, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.Nos.2746 of 2013 & 2954 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER:
MACMA.No.2746 OF 2013:
1. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company questioning the award passed by the Tribunal in granting compensation to the claimant claimant/injured in MVOP.No.231 of 2011, dt. 29.06.2013.
MACMA.No.2954 OF 2016:
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant/injured for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.231 of 2011, dt. 29.06.2013.
3. Heard.
4. Briefly, the case of the injured before the Tribunal is that on 28.07.2010, at about 1.30 p.m., while he was going as pillion rider when one Srinivas was riding the scooter, the offending vehicle which is lorry was driven at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner went in the wrong direction and dashed the scooter on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider. As a 2 result, the claimant received three fracture injuries to the legs and injuries on the head and other parts of the body.
5. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the liability is not disputed. However, the Insurance Company claims that since it was head on collision, the two wheeler driver is also at fault and accordingly, on the ground of contributory negligence, 50% ought to have been deducted from the compensation amount by the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, the claimant/injured argues that though it was claimed in the petition that the injured was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal committed an error in considering only Rs.4,500/- per month as income and granting compensation. Further, future prospects were also not considered by the Tribunal. In the said circumstances, the income of the claimant may be considered atleast at Rs.7,000/- and accordingly, grant compensation in view of the Judgment of Honourable Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others 1.
1 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3
7. The argument of the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company that 50% has to be reduced from the compensation for the reason of contributory negligence has no basis. It is the case of the claimant that while they were going on the left side of the road, the lorry came in wrong direction and dashed against the scooter. Nothing contrary to the said version is placed by the Insurance Company to suggest that the version of the claimant that the lorry was coming on the wrong side of the road is incorrect. Accordingly, the ground raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
8. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the claimant with regard to income is concerned, I do not find any infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal while considering the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is stated that at the relevant point of time, the claimant was working as 'Mason'. Accordingly, I do not find any reason to consider the enhancement of monthly income component other than what was considered by the Tribunal.
9. Insofar as the argument of the counsel with regard to the future prospects is concerned, as per the Judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethis's case (supra 1) 4 since the claimant is a mason and is aged below 40 years, an addition of 40% of the income of the claimant is taken towards future prospects.
10. Then, the compensation of the claimant is as follows;
The salary of the claimant after addition of future prospects @ 40% comes to Rs.6,300/- per month (4,500 + 40% of the income). The disability of the claimant arrived at by the Tribunal requires no interference. Since the claimant is aged 26 years at the time of accident, then the Loss of earnings of the claimant is Rs.6,80,400/- (6300 x 12 x 50% x 18).
11. Since the claimant sustained three fractures, an amount of Rs.25,000/- for each fracture can be awarded. Then the claimant is entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards grievous injuries. The claimant is further entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards transportation; and Rs.25,000/- towards extra nourishment.
12. The amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses and pharmacy bills remains unaltered. Hence the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,74,800/- towards medical expenses and an amount of Rs.52,870/- towards pharmacy bill.
5
13. Then, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.11,63,070/-. (6,80,400 + 75,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 25,000 + 2,74,800 + 52,870).
14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the National Insurance Company in MACMA.No.2746 of 2013 is dismissed. The appeal filed by the claimant in MACMA.2954 of 2016 is allowed enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from Rs.8,92,670/- to Rs.11,63,070/- with interest @ 7.5% on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, jointly and severally. The said amount shall be deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the claimant is permitted to withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. 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 Insurance Company deposits the amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________ K.SURENDER, J Date: 24.06.2024 tk