Manthani Nagarjuna vs Chandragiri Sailu And Anr

Telangana High Court

Manthani Nagarjuna vs Chandragiri Sailu And Anr on 3 May, 2024

       HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                    M.A.C.M.A.NO.341 OF 2017

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri V.Ramachandar Rao for the appellant/claimant and Sri A.Ravi Babu, learned counsel for the respondent no.2-RTC.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Karimnagar (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.546 of 2008, dated 02.12.2011 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.

3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein is respondent no.1-driver of RTC Bus and respondent no.2 herein is respondent no.2-owner of RTC Bus before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1. On 29.05.2006, at about 11.30 a.m., while the petitioner was travelling in Poultry van bearing registration No.AP-15-W-1603 as LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 2 a Cleaner, and when it reached the outskirts of Thimmapur village, the driver of the van stopped the van on the extreme left side of the road and directed the petitioner to clean the front glass of the van; that in the mean time, RTC bus bearing registration No.AP- 11-Z-318 (hereinafter referred to as offending vehicle) came in rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed the van from behind, as a result, the petitioner sustained injuries on his head, hands, legs besides other bleeding injuries over all the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Surya Nursing Home, Karimnagar and was treated from 29.05.2006 to 05.06.2006. 4.2. The Police, LMD Colony registered a case in Crime No.91 of 2006 U/s.337 of IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. 4.3. It is contended that petitioner incurred an amount of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, transportation and extra nourishment and he took bed rest for six months; that he sustained 60% of disability due to the injuries; that he is working as Cleaner on the said van and earning Rs.3,000/- per annum besides batta @ Rs.50/- daily. Due to the injuries sustained by petitioner in the accident, he is unable to do any work and lost his source of income for the remaining part of the life.

LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 3 4.4. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the respondent No.2, who was driving the offending vehicle, the respondent No.2 is the owner of RTC Bus Therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum.

5. The respondent No.1-driver of RTC Bus filed counter denying averments made in the claim petition and contended that he drove the bus in normal speed; that the van was stopped in the middle of the road without taking any precautionary measures; that when the bus reached near the van, the petitioner, who was cleaning the front portion of van, slipped and fell down on his own negligence and sustained injuries; that bus did not hit the van and therefore, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

6. The respondent No.2-RTC filed counter denying the narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the petitioner. It is contended that when the Bus reached near Thimmapur village, he observed a sand lorry coming in high speed in rash and negligent manner and he slowed down the bus by taking it to the left side of the road, but the driver of van who was LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 4 going ahead of him applied sudden breaks and thus, the driver also applied sudden brakes, in that process, the bus touched the van slowly, that accident occurred due to negligence of van driver, and finally prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:

1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-318 which resulted in the injuries to the petitioner Manthani Nagarjuna ?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

8. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the appellant- injured, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, respondent no.1 himself examined as RW.1, however no document was marked.

9. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/- towards LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 5 compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal further directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of the order.

10. 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 and disability sustained by the appellant; that Tribunal ought to have considered that appellant was aged 22 years as on the date of the accident and was working as Cleaner on poultry van and earning Rs.3,000/- per month besides batta at Rs.50/- per day and also the disability of 60% as per Ex.A7-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board in assessing the just compensation. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding meager amounts in respect of loss of injuries, pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc. and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation.

11. In support of the contention, learned counsel for appellant relied on the following decisions:

LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 6

i) Syed Sadiq etc. v. Divisional Manager, United India Ins.

Co. 1

ii) Jagdish v. Mohan and others 2; and

iii) Mohd. Ameeruddin and another vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and another 3

12. The learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards injuries sustained by the petitioner 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:

13. In Mohd.Ameeruddin (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"5. Against the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed an appeal before the High Court, which, as noticed above, was partly allowed. For assessing the monthly income of the deceased, the High Court took into account only the monthly salary of the deceased and excluded the amount of daily allowance (Rs. 50) from consideration observing as follows:

AIR 2014 SC 1052 2 2018 (3) ALD 55 (SC) 3 (2011) 1 SCC 304 LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 7 "However, the Tribunal has erred in including batta of Rs.50 per day, as a part of the salary and assessed the monthly income of the deceased. Batta is not paid as a part of the salary, but it is paid whenever there is work. It is now well settled that batta shall not be calculated in the salary in assessing the income of the deceased."

xxx

7. We are unable to appreciate the view taken by the High Court on both counts. First, there was no evidence that the daily allowance of Rs.50 was not paid to the deceased every day or even that he was not on work on every day of the month. On the contrary, there is evidence on record that apart from the monthly salary of Rs.2500 he was getting Rs.50 as daily allowance. We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in assessing the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.4000."

14. Insofar as the monthly income of the deceased is concerned, the petitioner claimed that he was working as Cleaner on poultry van and earning Rs.3,000/- per month besides batta of Rs.50/- per day. The said fact was not disputed by the respondents. Thus, the claim of the appellant that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month besides daily batta of Rs.50/- cannot be discarded.

15. In view of the above legal position and in the light of facts and circumstances of the present case, the age and profession, the date of accident, the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., this Court is of the view that the monthly income of the appellant can be fixed at Rs.4,500/-, which includes monthly LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 8 earnings and batta of Rs.50/- per day, for assessment of the compensation. Since the age of the appellant below 40 years and a self-employed, 40% of the income has to be added to the actual income of the appellant towards future prospects as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 4. Thus, the total income of the appellant would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + 1800/-) per month.

16. With regard to the other contention of learned counsel for appellant that Tribunal failed to award compensation towards 60% permanent disability, it is pertinent to note that on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.2-Dr.U.V.Vishnuvardhan Reddy was examined and according to him, he treated the petitioner and found seven injuries, out of which, six injuries are simple in nature and one injury is grievous in nature; that he issued Ex.A3-wound certificate, Ex.A5-discharge card. The petitioner was further treated by Dr.J.Mothilal, Orthopedic Surgeon, who was examined as P.W.3. According to P.W.3, petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 30.05.2006 with burst fracture dorsal spine-12 4 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 9 vertebra and with multiple injuries and was discharged on 05.06.2006 with an advice to take bed rest for three months; that petitioner cannot carry weights, cannot get on stairs and cannot bend or run; that after discharge, petitioner attended for further follow up treatment and his last visit was on 08.10.2006. According to him, as per Ex.A11-disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, petitioner suffered 60% disability. However, the Tribunal had not considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner and no compensation was awarded on account of disability and therefore, the same needs consideration.

17. In Jagdish (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:

"8. In assessing the compensation payable, the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:

(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;

(ii) Loss of income including future income;

(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;

(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and

(v) Loss of expectation of life.

LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 10

9. In Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1095 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 108 : (2011) 12 Scale 658] , this Court held :

(SCC p. 762, para 15) "15. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."

10. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh [Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 723 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 512] and B. Kothandapani v. T.N. STC Ltd. [B. Kothandapani v. T.N. STC Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 343 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002]. The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.

11. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 :

(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] , this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 688] , Reshma Kumari v.

Madan Mohan [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044] , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 :

(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] , and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] and held thus : (Govind Yadav case [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] , SCC p. 693, para 18) LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 11 "18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Arvind Kumar Mishra v.

New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."

These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v. T.N. STC [Subulaxmi v. T.N. STC, (2012) 10 SCC 177 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1100 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was)."

18. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence on record, and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court the disability suffered by the appellant to the extent of 60% has to be taken into consideration while computing compensation.

19. This Court assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.75,600/- per annum (Rs.6,300/- x 12). Thus, the loss of earnings due to the disability would be 60% of Rs.75,600/-, which comes to Rs.45,360/- per annum. As the age of the appellant at the time of the accident was 22 years, the proper multiplier would be 18. Therefore, the loss of future earnings would be Rs.8,16,480/- (Rs.45,360/- x 18) LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 12

20. 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:

21. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:

Sl.No.                 Head                 Compensation awarded

1          Loss of earnings                 Rs.8,16,480/-

2          Injuries                         Rs.   27,000/-

3          Pain and suffering               Rs.   15,000/-

4          Medical expenses                 Rs.   15,000/-

5          Loss of amenities                Rs.   15,000/-

6          Extra nourishment                Rs.   10,000/-

7          Transportation                   Rs.   10,000/-

           Total   compensation   to   be   Rs.9,08,480/-
           paid:

22. In the result, Appeal is allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.92,000/- to Rs.9,08,480/-, which shall carry interest at the rate LNA,J MACMA No.341 of 2017 13 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. 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: 03.05.2024 kkm