Telangana High Court
Puramshetty Venu vs Chiluveru Janardhan And Anr on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2304 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 03.01.2007 in O.P.No.502 of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Karimnagar (herein after referred as "Tribunal"), the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned counsel for the appellant is no more. On 12.09.2024, this Court has directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant. Inspite of service of notice, the appellant has not entered appearance. Similarly, inspite of the service of notice to the respondents, they also not entered appearance. Hence, this Court to render substantial justice to the parties, appointed Sri N.Chandra Shekar, learned counsel as Amicus Curie to assist the Court on the ground that the matter is pertains to the year 2009.
JSR, J MACMA_2304_2009 2
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 03.12.2004, the appellant along with one Pathem Chandraiah were proceeding on his TVS bearing No.AP-15-D-
7660 towards their village from Karimnagar, when they reached the outskirts of Kothapally village near Velichala X Road at about 05.45 p.m., one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-1439 came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, being driven by respondent No.1 and dashed against the appellant vehicle. As a result, the appellant sustained injuries on his right hand, right leg and all over the body. Immediately, the appellant lodged a complaint before the Karimnagar Rural Police Station and he was shifted to the Government Hospital, karimnagar and thereafter, referred to NIMS, Hyderabad, there he was treated as an in-patient from 04.12.2004 to 18.12.2004. The appellant was doing agricultural work and milk business and due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not continue his works. Thus, The appellant filed OP No.502 of 2005 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads, but the Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.71,278/-. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
JSR, J MACMA_2304_2009 3
4. Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae:
4.1. Learned Amicus Curie would submit that the appellant was admitted as in-patient in hospital from 04.12.2004 to 18.12.2004 and thereafter, for the purpose of surgery, he was again admitted in the hospital on 21.03.2005 and he was discharged on 04.04.2005. To establish the said factum, the appellant was examined PWs.2 to 4 and filed Exs.A7, A8, A10 to A13, without considering the same, the Tribunal below awarded only an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings. 4.2. He further submitted that in spite of the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, the Tribunal below awarded meager amount of Rs.2,000/-. Though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.2,000/-. The appellant claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and treatment charges and filed medical bills under Ex.A6. However, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of Rs.24,278/-. He also submitted that in so far as pain and suffering, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal below awarded the meager amount of JSR, J MACMA_2304_2009 4 Rs.5,000/-. The appellant awarded meager amount of Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings, though the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.
5. Analysis of the case:
5.1. This Court considered the submissions made by the Amicus Curie and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries to his right hand, right leg and all over the body. The appellant claimed that at the time of accident, he was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal below has not awarded any amount towards loss of earnings on the ground that the appellant has not adduced any evidence. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the monthly income of the daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence. Hence, the appellant is entitled to claim an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards his monthly income. The record further discloses that the Doctor advised the 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 JSR, J MACMA_2304_2009 5 appellant to take rest for a period of six (06) months while issuing discharge summary. Hence, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled for loss of earnings for a period of ten (10) months, though he claimed for a period of three (03) months. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.45,000/- @ Rs.4,500/- per month for ten months towards loss of earnings. Similarly, the appellant is also entitled an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment charges, and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and also Rs.50,000/- for grievous injuries. In addition to the above said amount, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of "V.Mekala vs M. Malathi and others" 2, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs of litigation. Thus in all, the appellant is entitled for Rs.1,90,000/- under all counts.
6. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part enhancing the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to the appellant from Rs.71,272/- to Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees One Lakh 2 2014 (5) ALD 42 SC JSR, J MACMA_2304_2009 6 Ninety Thousand only). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date: 20.11.2024 pld