Thogati Veeranjaneyulu vs Syed Basha And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 4936 AP

        HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No. 724 of 2006

JUDGMENT:-

       This is an appeal filed by the injured/claimant against the

Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.931 of 2000

passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII

Additional District Judge, Guntur, (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Tribunal').


2.     Heard Mr. Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate, representing

Mr.N.Subbarao,       learned   counsel   for   the   appellant   and   Mr.

V.Veerabhadra Chary, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent No.2-

Insurance company.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter

referred to as they were arrayed before the Claims Tribunal in the

original petition.

4. The petitioner in the claim petition filed the above O.P., stating

inter alia, that while he was going in an Auto bearing No.AP-7W-1751

on 13.08.2000 from Muppalla side towards Narasaraopet and when

the auto reached near Gollapadu Village, the driver of a Jeep bearing

No.AP-7U- 5306, dashed against the auto and as a result of the

same, the petitioner received grievous injuries to his left leg. Initially,

he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- and subsequently the

same was enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/- by amending the Original

Petition as the petitioner sustained permanent disability due to

amputation of his left leg.

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

5. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent

-Insurance Company filed its written statement, as also additional

written statement contending inter alia that the petitioner was

responsible for the accident and therefore he cannot claim

compensation against the owner of the jeep.

6. The petitioner in support of his case, examined himself as

P.W.1 and the Doctors who treated the injured were examined as

P.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the 2nd

respondent Insurance-Company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1

and B2 were marked.

7. The Tribunal while answering the issues in favour of the

petitioner inter alia, held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP-7U-

5306. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence on record,

and the fact that the left leg of the petitioner was amputated below

the knee and considering the permanent disability at 50% due to

such amputation, arrived at the loss of future earnings at Rs.80,000/-

(50% of Rs.1,60,000/-). The Tribunal also awarded a sum of

Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of

amenities/loss of marriage prospects and Rs.10,000/- towards

medical expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.1,10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till

the date of payment as against the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/-.

Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree of the Tribunal in partly

allowing the claim petition, the present appeal has been preferred.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant inter alia

contended that the Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of the

petitioner/claimant at Rs.15,000/- p.a., as against the claim of

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

Rs.3,000/- per month. He would further contend that the

petitioner/claimant was unmarried at the time of accident and the

Tribunal erred in deducting 1/3rd amount towards personal expenses,

instead of 50% of the income. He submits that as per the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others v. Delhi

Transport Corporation and Another1, the applicable multiplier is

'18' but the Tribunal erroneously took the same as '16'. While relying

on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay

Kumar and Others2, Chandra @ Chanda @ Chandraram and

Another v. Mukesh Kumar Yadav and Others3 and Pappu Deo

Yadav v. Naresh Kumar and Others4 and National Insurance Co.

Ltd., v. Birender5 etc., the learned counsel would urge that the

petitioner/claimant is entitled for more compensation, with interest @

9 % p.a. He also submits that the claimant is entitled to the benefit of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others6 and 40% of the

future income has to be taken into account while arriving at the loss

of earnings.

9. Per Contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-

Insurance company, contends that the amount as awarded by the

Tribunal is just, reasonable and warrants no interference by this

Court. He submits that the accident occurred in the year 2000 due to

the negligence of the claimant/petitioner and the petitioner/claimant

failed to prove his income and therefore, in the absence of proof of

income, the Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income of the

petitioner. He also submits that loss of marriage prospects and loss

1 (2009) 6 SCC 121 2 2011 ACJ 1 3 2021 SCC Online SC 850 4 2020 ACJ 2695 5 (2020) 11 SCC 356 6 (2017) 16 SCC 680

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

of amenities comes under the same head and therefore, the

appellant/petitioner is not entitled to any further amounts under this

head. While contending that the petitioner having filed the claim

petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act(for short 'the

Act'), has no right to seek compensation liberally as in the case of a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Act. He further submits that

the interest as awarded under Section 171 of the Act is, at the

discretion of the Tribunal and the same warrants no interference. He

further submits that the judgments relied on by the learned counsel

for the appellant/petitioner, more particularly, the United India

Insurance Company Limited v. Sunil Kumar and Another7 etc.,

are not applicable to the facts of the case. The learned counsel

submits that in any event, no enhancement as claimed may be

awarded, as the Tribunal has awarded appropriate compensation,

taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances of

the case. Accordingly, he urges to dismiss the appeal.

10. In reply, the learned counsel for the claimant/appellant in

elaboration of his arguments submits that it is not open to the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company to raise the defence of negligence

and infact the same was adjudicated by the Tribunal and a finding

was recorded in favour of the claimant/appellant rejecting the said

plea. With reference to the contentions of the learned counsel for the

2nd respondent-Insurance Company that once the Claimant opted the

remedy under Section 163-A of the Act, no enhancement in terms of

Section 166 of the Act, can be claimed, the learned counsel submits

that the same is not tenable and placed reliance on the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shivaji and Another v. Divisional

7 (2019) 12 SCC 398

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

Manager8. The learned counsel in the light of the judgments of the

Hon'le Supreme Court, relied on by him, seeks enhancement of

compensation, which may be just and reasonable.

11. The contentions of both the learned counsel are considered

and perused the material on record. Before dealing with the

submissions of learned counsel for the claimant/appellant, it would

be appropriate to consider the submissions of the learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company with regard to the claim

being made under Section 163-A of the Act vis-à-vis Section 166 of

the Act. The said contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance

Company is not sustainable in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Raj Kumar's case (referred supra), wherein the

Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with a claim under Section 163-A of the

Act and enhanced the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. In

the said case, the Tribunal has taken the income of the

injured/claimant, a cheese vendor at Rs.900/- p.m., as against the

claim of Rs.3,000/- p.m. The Tribunal, as there was no acceptable

evidence of income of the injured/claimant, assessed at Rs.900/-

p.m., as the minimum wage was at Rs.891/- p.m. The Hon'ble

Supreme Court while opining that it would be very difficult to expect a

roadside vendor to have accounts or other documents regarding

income and as the accident occurred in the year 1991, held that the

Tribunal ought to have assumed the income at least Rs.1,500/- p.m. (

@ Rs.50/- per day) or Rs.18,000/- p.a., even in the absence of

specific documentary evidence regarding income.

12. In the light of the expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

this Court is inclined to consider the claim of the appellant/claimant

for enhancement of compensation and accordingly reject the

8 (2019) 12 SCC 395

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company.

13. In the present case, the accident occurred in the year 2000

and there is no dispute that the injured/claimant suffered 50%

permanent disability as per the finding of the Tribunal. In the Claim

petition, an amount of Rs.3,000/- p.m., was claimed as income by

manufacturing cement tubs and well rings. The said amount cannot

be treated as excessive or exorbitant. Even, if the daily wages

during the relevant time is taken into account, the same would not be

less than Rs.100/- per day. Therefore, this Court deems it

reasonable to take the monthly income of the injured/claimant at

Rs.3,000/-, for the purpose of arriving at the loss of future earnings.

As contended by the claimant's counsel, the appellant/claimant is

also entitled to the benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Pranaysethi's case(referred to supra), with regard to future

prospects. Accordingly, the loss of future earnings is arrived at by

applying the multiplier '18' and taking the disability @ 50%.

Income : Rs.100/- per day X 30 days = Rs. 3,000/-

40% of the monthly earnings                         = Rs. 1,200/-
(As per Pranay Sethis's case)                         -------------------
                                  Total Income      = Rs. 4,200/-
                                                      -------------------
Loss of future earnings
(Rs.4,200 X 18 X 12) is Rs.9,07,200/-

As permanent disability is 50%
Total loss of future earnings                        = Rs.4,53,600/-

14. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Rajkumar's case (referred supra), the appellant is also entitled for

damages under the heads of pain and suffering, the loss of amenities

(loss of marriage prospects), loss of expectation of life(shortening of

normal languity).

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

15. Though, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

towards loss of amenities/loss of marriage prospects, considering the

fact that the left leg of injured/claimant was amputated below the

knee, this Court is of the opinion that the said amount is meager and

an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- under the said head would be

reasonable. Further, the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering is not just and reasonable and the same is enhanced to

Rs.50,000/-. Further, due to the accident which has resulted in

grievous injuries to the appellant/claimant, he is entitled to

compensation under the head of loss of expectation of life(shortening

of normal languity) and a sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded towards the

same. The appellant was admittedly in hospital for more than one

month. He is entitled for loss of earnings during the period of

treatment and a sum of Rs.3,000/- is granted. Though an amount of

Rs.15,000/- was claimed towards medical expenses, special diet,

and attendant charges, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

which is not just. Keeping in view the nature of injuries, same is

enhanced to Rs.25,000/-

16. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,81,600/-. In view of

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramla v. National

Insurance Company Limited9, the amount of compensation,

which is just and reasonable can be awarded more than the claim

amount. However, the appellant/claimant has to pay differential

Court fee for the amount awarded over and above the amount

claimed. Further, though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-

Insurance Company submitted that the interest as awarded, is

reasonable and well within the discretion of the Tribunal, this Court

9 (2019) 2 SCC 192

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

while rejecting the same, is inclined to enhance the interest to 9%

p.a., in the light of the expression of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited v. Birender and Others10.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.1,10,000/- to Rs. 6,81,600/-

together with interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of petition till the date

of realization. The compensation amount shall be deposited by the

2nd respondent-Insurance Company, within a period of 8 weeks from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on such deposit, the

appellant/claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. No costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.

__________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J 02.12.2021.

BLV

10 (2020) 11 SCC 356

NJS, J MACMA_724_2006

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

M.A.C.M.A.No.724 of 2006 Dated 02.12.2021

BLV