The single-judge bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Court must examine whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the claimant.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that the Petitioner and his wife parked the motorcycle to attend the nature call, and at that time, a car came in the opposite direction and drove the driver rashly and negligently without blowing the horn by violating the traffic rules, came to the extreme right side of the road and dashed the Petitioner. Due to this, the Petitioner fell and sustained fractures and multiple injuries all over his body. Then, he was shifted to the government hospital for treatment. Thereafter, the case was registered under Section 337 of I.P.C. against the driver of the car. The tribunal granted the compensation of Rs.1,64,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal is filed by the appellant for the enhancement of the compensation.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant submitted that the Petitioner was 30 years old at the time of the incident and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The accident made it difficult for him to continue his business, and he lost his earnings. It was furthermore submitted that the tribunal failed to apply the multiplier in terms of Sarla Verma's judgment based on the age and income of the petitioner and passed the award.
Observations of the Court:
The Hon’ble Court observed that to assess the quantum of compensation to be awarded, the Court must examine whether the permanent disability caused has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the claimant.
The court relied upon the judgments titled Sandeep Khanuja vs Atul Dande and Anr, R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd.
The court noted that the Petitioner suffered 40% disability, and the doctor who treated the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner cannot walk without any support, cannot perform his regular work, and the disability is 40%, which is permanent.
Based on these considerations, the court thought that the tribunal awarded the meagre compensation insofar as non-pecuniary damages. The court enhanced the compensation from Rs.1,64,000/- to Rs.10,26,400/-.
The decision of the Court:
With the above direction, the court allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Jaya Venkata Reddy V. Y.B.Sreedhar Reddy and another.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sumathi Jagadam
Case No.: M.A.C.M.A.No.2576 of 2006
Advocate for the Appellant: Sri J.Janaki Rami Reddy
Advocate for the Respondent: Sri Gudi Srinivasu
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
