Thangirala Kasaiah vs M/S Espi Plastic Pipes ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 1865 AP

         THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.520 OF 2006
ORDER:

The injured/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree

dated 03.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.1204 of 2001 on the file of the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District

Court, Guntur filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation.

2. The appellant/injured filed the above said O.P., against

the respondents seeking an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards

compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident that occurred on 30.8.2001. In support of his case, he

examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as

P.W.2. He got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X1 case sheet.

The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-

Insurance Company filed counter and contested the matter. No

oral or documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. The

Tribunal, after framing the relevant issues and considering the

material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent's

driver. The Tribunal while taking the income of the appellant at

Rs.12,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal

expenses and taking the disability at 50% and applicable

multiplier of '16' arrived at the loss of earning capacity of the

appellant as Rs.64,000/- (Rs.8,000 X 16 X 50/100). In addition

to the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-

towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant

charges and special diet. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a

sum of Rs.79,000/- towards compensation together with

interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the

claimant filed the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate representing

Mr.N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. He submits

that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the annual income as

Rs.12,000/- and also in deducting 1/3rd towards personal

expenses as if it is a case of death. He submits that the

Tribunal should have taken the monthly income of the

appellant/injured at Rs.3,000/- and places reliance on the

decision reported in Jakkampudi Krishna Venkata

Satyanarayana vs. Guttula Rama Mohan Rao1. While relying

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

Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi2, the learned counsel

submits that the appellant aged about 35 years is entitled to

40% of the salary towards future prospects and thus the

amount of loss of dependency would work out to Rs.4,03,200/-.

He further submits that the appellant is also entitled to further

compensation towards special diet, attendant charges, trauma

separately. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar3, he also submits

that due to the accident, four limbs of the appellant were

affected and therefore the appellant is entitled to reasonable

amounts towards future medical expenses, loss of expectation of

2015 (1) AnWR 366 (AP) 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 3 (2011) 1 SCC 343

life etc. He further submits that though the appellant sought

less amount towards compensation, in view of the judgments of

the Hon'ble apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdial Singh4 and

Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.5, the Court is

empowered to grant just and reasonable compensation.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel with

reference to the material on record and the judgments referred

to supra. In so far as the contention regarding the income of the

appellant is concerned, though the learned counsel submits that

it should be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal after

referring to the evidence of the appellant/claimant that he is

earning Rs.50 per day and used to work for 23 days in a month,

took the income as Rs.1,200/- per month. Therefore the

Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the monthly

income of the appellant. However, the Tribunal committed an

error in calculating the annual income as Rs.12,000/- instead of

Rs.14,400/- and also in deducting 1/3rd from Rs.12,000/-

towards personal expenses which is not sustainable. There is

no dispute with regard to the multiplier applied and the

percentage of disability. Further, in the light of the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pranay Sethi case, the appellant

is entitled to 40% of the income towards future prospects.

Accordingly, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,61,280/- (Rs.1,200

+ 480 X 12 X16 X 50/100) towards loss of earning capacity.

4 (2003) 2 SCC 274 5 (2019) 2 SCC 192

5. Though the Tribunal observed that two injuries are

grievous in nature, an amount of Rs.10,000/- only was awarded

and no amounts were granted for the other two injuries which is

not just or tenable. Accordingly, the said amount is enhanced

to Rs.25,000/- and awarded under the head pain and suffering.

Considering the nature of injuries and also disability at 50%,

the Tribunal while observing that no medical bills were

produced, awarded Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges,

special diet and medical expenses. However, in view of the

evidence of the Doctor-P.W.2 to the effect that the appellant is

having partial and permanent disability and he cannot do any

work and cannot walk without support, this Court deems it

appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards attendant charges

and special diet in addition to Rs.5,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal under the said head.

6. With regard to compensation for loss of expectation of life,

future medical expenses, the learned counsel placed reliance on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar case.

As noted from the order of the Tribunal, a finding was recorded

that the appellant is having 50% partial permanent disability as

his four limbs are affected. Considering the age of the appellant

and the impact of the accident on the appellant's life, this Court

is of the opinion that he is entitled to reasonable compensation

under the head loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life and

also towards future medical expenses. Accordingly, a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- is granted under the said heads. Thus, the

appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.3,11,280/- in all. Though the

original claim is for Rs.2,50,000/-, the above mentioned

compensation, which is just and reasonable, is fixed in terms of

the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nagappa,

Ramla etc. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of

realization. The respondents shall deposit the amount as

enhanced, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy

of this order. The appellant, on such deposit, is entitled to

withdraw the same. The appellant shall pay the court fee in

respect of the amounts awarded over and above the

compensation claimed, within six weeks from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed. Miscellaneous

applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J May 06, 2021.

vasu