Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Mulli Trinadha, Vizianagaram vs M. Sreenivasa Rao Another on 29 August, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3089 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dt.11.05.2010 in
M.V.O.P.No.1096/2007 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Vizianagaram granting compensation of
Rs.29,600/- against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, the appellant-injured
preferred the present M.A.C.M.A., seeking enhancement of the
compensation awarded.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they
are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, on 14.01.2007 at about
10.30 p.m., while the petitioner-injured along with other passengers
were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 35 U 2279 from Salur
towards Panchali Village and when the auto reached near
Bangaramma Colony Water Tank, Salur, the 1st respondent, who is
the driver of the auto, had driven the auto in a rash and negligent
manner, dashed a motorcycle as a result, the petitioner-injured
sustained fracture on his right femur besides other injuries all over
his body. Then, he was shifted to Community Health Centre, Salur
for treatment. Later, the petitioner-injured was shifted to Government
Headquarters Hospital, Vizianagaram, and was treated from
15.01.2007 to 03.04.2007. The petitioner-injured used to do masonry
work and earn Rs.150/- per a day prior to the accident. Subsequent
to the accident, he was unable to do any work due to the injuries
sustained in the accident and he was disabled.
2 DVR, J
MACMA No.3089/2011
4. The 1st respondent proceeded exparte. The 2nd respondent filed
a counter opposing the claim mainly contending that the accident
occurred due to the fault of the driver of the motorcycle but not due to
the fault of the driver of the auto. The various amounts claimed in
the petition are highly exaggerated and the petitioner is not entitled to
the same.
5. During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7
were marked, on behalf of the petitioner. The official of the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and Ex.B.1
was marked.
6. The Tribunal having regard to the oral and documentary
evidence, awarded compensation of Rs.29,600/- with interest @ 6%
per annum from the date of the petition till the realization and
proportionate costs.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
company.
8. While evaluating the evidence of P.W.1, the Tribunal had drawn
conclusion that there is no evidence on record about the avocation
and income of the appellant-injured. In the absence of any evidence
in respect thereof, it is not possible to calculate the compensation
under the head of loss of earnings and disability by applying the
multiplier method regarding his income and age.
9. The appellant-injured was a mason and he was aged about 30
years and the time of the accident and he claimed that he used to
earn Rs.150/- per a day and subsequent to the accident, he is unable
to do any work. A perusal of Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate issued by
3 DVR, J
MACMA No.3089/2011
P.W.2 shows that the appellant-injured sustained one fracture which
is a grievous injury and the rest of the injuries are simple in nature.
Though there was no record about the avocation and income of the
appellant-injured as claimed by him, as per the Minimum Wages Act,
in the absence of any evidence, at least Rs.100/- per a day i.e.,
Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken into consideration and the
injuries sustained by the appellant-injured was quantified as 30%
disability, as per Ex.A.6. The loss of earning capacity is however
assessed by this Court at 15% based on the Disability Certificate
issued by P.W.2. However, taking into consideration of the severity of
the injuries sustained by the appellant and the treatment underwent
by him, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner as it is
just and reasonable amount. Apart from that, the Tribunal considered
the bunch of medical bills marked as Ex.A.5 for an amount of
Rs.9,659.70 p.s. Taking into consideration the severity of the injuries
and the treatment undergone by the petitioner, a total sum of
Rs.29,600/- was awarded by the Tribunal, without mentioning the
heads under which the amount was awarded. Challenging the same,
the present appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner.
10. In the case of this nature, the evidence of P.W.2/Doctor who
examined the injured and issued a Wound Certificate, would show
that the appellant/injured sustained partial permanent disability as
assessed by the Doctor. The Tribunal ought to have granted not only
the medical expenses but also other amounts under various heads,
such as pain and suffering, attendant charges, extra nourishment,
loss of amenities, and transportation charges.
4 DVR, J
MACMA No.3089/2011
11. However, it is relevant to refer to the ratio laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kavita vs. Deepak and
Others1 wherein it was held that whenever an amount is determined
as the compensation payable for the injury suffered during an
accident, the object is to compensate such injury "so far as money can
compensate" because it is impossible to equate the money with the
human sufferings or personal deprivations. Money cannot renew a
broken and shattered physical frame. For the injured who is disabled
either permanently or temporarily, efforts should be made to award
adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment
but also for the loss of earnings and unable to lead a normal life and
enjoy the benefits which would have been enjoyed but for the
disability caused in the accident.
12. Based on the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court, granted
various amounts under different heads shown in Para 22 following the
judgment in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar2.
13. Therefore, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Kavita Vs. Deepak and others stated
supra, I am not inclined to approve the approach of the Tribunal in
granting a lump-sum compensation without taking into consideration
of loss of income during the period of treatment when the appellant
was totally incapacitated. Hence, keeping in view of partial
permanent disability of the appellant, this Court is of the view that
the appellant is entitled to a further sum of Rs.25,000/- towards pain
and suffering, an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards loss of
(2012) 8 SCC 604
2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
5 DVR, J
MACMA No.3089/2011
earnings during the period of treatment i.e., from 15.01.2007 to
03.04.2007 @ Rs.3,000/- per month (Rs.3,000/- x 2 ½ months =
Rs.7,500/-) and Rs.10,000/- towards expenses relating to the
treatment, extra nourishment and miscellaneous expenses and the
total compensation payable to the appellants is as follows:
Enhanced compensation:
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
Loss of earnings Rs. 7,500
Expenses for treatment,
Extra nourishment and
Miscellaneous expenses Rs. 10,000
----------------
Rs. 42,500
Compensation awarded by the
Tribunal (+) Rs. 29,600
----------------
Total compensation Rs. 72,100
----------------
14. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal is
partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.29,600/- to
Rs.72,100/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum
from the date of petition till the date of realization against the
respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents are
directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from
the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out
against them.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending for
consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
Date: 29.08.2022
Dinesh
6 DVR, J
MACMA No.3089/2011
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.3089 OF 2011
29.08.2022
Dinesh
