Duddala Nageswara Rao vs Ardala Suryanarayana Anr.
2021 Latest Caselaw 4939 AP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 4939 AP
Judgement Date : 2 December, 2021

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Duddala Nageswara Rao vs Ardala Suryanarayana Anr. on 2 December, 2021

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                      M.A.C.M.A.No. 1619 of 2006

JUDGMENT:

The injured claimant, aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2006

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

Additional District Judge (FTC), Guntur (for short 'the Claims Tribunal')

in M.V.O.P.No.81 of 2004, filed the present appeal.

2. Heard Mr. A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant, and Mr. K. Rama Mohan Rao, learned counsel for

the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.

3. The appellant/claimant filed the above mentioned original petition

claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a road accident that occurred on 19.05.2003. In the original

petition, it is averred that while the claimant and others were travelling in

an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 16TT 0510 from Chiluvuru

to Vijayawada, the driver of a tractor and trailer bearing registration

Nos.AP 7K 8223 and AP 7K 8224 drove the same in a rash and negligent

manner at a high speed and hit the auto-rickshaw from opposite direction

near Kunchanapally cross road on N.H.5 Bypass Road, Tadepalli

Mandal, Guntur District, as a result of the said accident, the claimant

sustained severe injuries including compound and commuted fracture of

both bones of right hand below the elbow and compound fracture of right

hand above elbow and multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant,

NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006

in support of his case, examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who

treated him, as P.W.2 and also got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 and Exs.X.1 to

X.3.

4. The 1st respondent i.e., the owner of the tractor and trailer

remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed its

written statement and contested the matter. No oral or documentary

evidence was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company.

5. The Claims Tribunal, after considering the material on record,

awarded a sum of Rs.66,400/- in all, against the total claim of

Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the

petition, till payment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is

preferred by the claimant.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the

amount as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is meager and though an

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed, the appellant is entitled to more

compensation than the amount claimed in the original petition as the

earning capacity of the appellant was severely affected in view of the

nature of the injuries, surgery and insertion of rod. He further submits

that though the percentage of disability was assessed at 40% by P.W.2-

Doctor, who worked as a Professor in Orthopedic Wing, the Claims

Tribunal failed to take the same into account while arriving at the amount

NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006

of compensation. He also submits that the appellant is entitled to the

amounts under different heads i.e., pain and suffering, loss of expectation

of life, attendant charges and extra nourishment, in the light of the

principles laid down in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar, reported in 2011 (1)

SCC 343, and further the benefit of addition of 40% income towards

future prospects as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi, reported in

2017 (16) SCC 680. The learned counsel also submits that the interest as

awarded by the Claims Tribunal i.e., 6% p.a. is very less. Contending so,

the learned counsel would urge that the amount of compensation may be

determined and just and reasonable compensation may be awarded.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance

Company, on the other hand, submits that the Claims Tribunal has taken

into account all the relevant factors while arriving at the compensation

payable to the claimant, the award is well reasoned and therefore,

warrants no interference by this Court.

8. This Court has considered the submissions of both the learned

counsel and perused the material on record.

9. Before considering the submission of the learned counsel for the

appellant/claimant with regard to enhancement of compensation, it may

be noted that the occurrence of the accident and the injuries sustained by

the claimant as a result of the said accident are not in dispute and no

NJS,J MACMA No.1619 of 2006

appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company questioning

its liability to pay the compensation jointly and severally along with the

1st respondent-owner of the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer.

Insofar as the compensation is concerned, the Claims Tribunal had taken

the daily income of the appellant at Rs.50/-. The accident occurred in the

year 2003. The daily income of the claimant as fixed by the Claims

Tribunal at Rs.50/-, in the opinion of this Court, is not just and

reasonable. Its finding is that the claimant failed to prove that he was

earning Rs.100/- per day as a Masala Vender is not just or tenable, since

he is not expected to adduce any documentary evidence to substantiate

the income derived from the business as Masala Vender. Even assuming,

the minimum wage during the relevant period was not less than Rs.100/-

per day. Therefore, for the purpose of arriving at the compensation, the

daily income of the petitioner is taken as Rs.100/-, which, according to

the considered opinion of this Court, is neither exorbitant nor

unreasonable.

10. The loss of future earnings is accordingly arrived at as follows:

Monthly income (Rs.100/- per day x 30 days) Rs.3,000/- + 40% of the income towards future prospects Rs.1,200/-

-------------

Total                                                 Rs.4,200/-
                                                      --------------

Annual income      (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 18)             Rs.3,62,800/-
(by taking the multiplier of '18' for the
age group of 23 years and disability @ 40%)

Loss of earning during the period of treatment        Rs.10,800/-

                                                                            NJS,J
                                                           MACMA No.1619 of 2006



(108 days as adopted by the Tribunal)
(108 x Rs.100/- per day)


Pain and suffering                                   Rs.21,000/-
(Rs.20,000/- for grievous injuries
and Rs.1,000/- for a simple injury)
Medical expenses                                     Rs.10,000/-

Loss of amenities in life                            Rs.20,000/-

Attendant charges                                    Rs.5,000/-

Extra nourishment                                    Rs.5,000/-
                                                     ----------------
Total compensation                                   Rs.4,34,600/-
                                                     -----------------


11.   Though      the       appellant   claimed   Rs.1,50,000/-          towards

compensation, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Ramla Vs. National Insurance Company Limited, reported in 2019 (2)

SCC 192, just and reasonable compensation can be awarded. However,

the appellant shall pay the requisite Court fee in respect of the amount

awarded over and above the compensation claimed.

12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed. The compensation is

enhanced from Rs.66,400/- to Rs.4,34,600/- and interest is awarded @

7.5% p.a., as 6% p.a. awarded by the Tribunal is meager. The Insurance

Company shall deposit the enhanced amount together with interest from

the date of petition till the date of realization within eight weeks from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is

entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs.