Telangana High Court
Konam Shankar Rao vs M/S. Super Steel Gencies on 20 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.777 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
The appellant No.1 has filed this appeal against the Order and Decree dated 01.03.2007 in O.P.No.470 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III District Judge, I.F.T.C), Nalgonda, whereunder the tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the injuries received by him in the accident occurred on 26.07.2003.
2. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri G.Nasaraiah, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the entire material on record.
3. It appears from the record that during pendency of the appeal, appellant No.1 died and pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2014 in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3892 of 2014, appellant No.2 was brought on record as legal heir of appellant No.1.
2
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. On 26.07.2003, at about 06:00 p.m., while the appellant No.1 was proceeding towards Kattangur in his mini van bearing No.AP-24-T-8834, the lorry bearing No.AP-11-W-5475, which was proceeding from Vijayawada side towards Hyderabad side, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the mini van from its rear side, due to which the appellant No.1 received grievous injury on his right eye. Immediately after the accident, appellant No.1 was shifted to Government hospital and took treatment as inpatient. Thereafter he was shifted to Sarojini Eye hospital, where he could not get relief, as such he had been shifted to L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital for better treatment. Inspite of it, he could not recover fully and lost his eyesight, thereby suffered disability to an extent of 30%.
4.2. As soon as the accident has taken place, appellant No.1 has lodged a complaint against the lorry driver and the same was registered as Crime No.68 of 2003, under 3 Section 338 of IPC on the file of Kattangur Police Station, Nalgonda.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that prior to the accident, the appellant No.1 used to work as driver and used to earn an amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and due to the accident, he received grievous injury on his right eye and he was unable to attend his work and he suffered 30% disability. He further contended that the appellant No.1 in L.V.Prasad Eye Hospital took treatment as inpatient from 30.07.2003 to 05.08.2003 and had spent more than Rs.60,000/- towards medicines and treatment. He further submits that the tribunal without properly considering the evidence adduced by the appellant No.1, awarded meager amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation. He further submits that the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 has considered the monthly income of the daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence. In the present case, as 1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 4 the appellant No.1 is aged about 39 years at the time of accident and used to work as driver, an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month can be considered as his income.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 contended that the tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and the appellant No.1 is not entitled for enhancement of compensation.
7. Analysis of the case:
7.1. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties and after perusal of the material available on record, it is undisputed fact that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident has taken place and the appellant No.1 sustained grievous injury on his right eye and he suffered disability to an extent of 30%. In proof of the same, appellant No.1 has filed Ex.A4, i.e., disability certificate. As the appellant No.1 has received grievous injury to his right eye, he could not 5 continue in his profession as driver. Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the disability as 100%. 7.2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case, the appellant No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,500/- per month. Hence the annual income of the appellant No.1 comes to Rs.54,000/-(Rs.4,500x12). As the appellant was aged about 39 years, the appropriate multiplier as per column No.4 of the table given in the judgment of the Apex Court in "Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation 2," is '15', which comes to Rs.8,10,000/- (Rs.54,000 x 15). As per the judgment of the Apex Court in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another 3, the appellant No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, the appellant No.1 is granted total compensation amount of Rs.8,20,000/-(Rs.8,10,000+ Rs.10,000). As appellant No.1 2 (2009)6 SCC 121 3 2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC) 6 died during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 is permitted to withdraw the said amount.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal from Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.8,20,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand only). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till 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 the judgment. On such deposit, appellant No.2 is entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security. However, the appellant No.2 is directed to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date : 20.11.2024 Vsl