Buchipati Raja vs The Ap State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 7104 AP

          HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

                        MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 15.09.2011in MVOP.No.758 of

2006 passed by the Chairman - Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims

Tribunal - Cum - VI Additional District Judge Kadapa (for short

'the Tribunal'), the appellant who is the petitioner in

MVOP.No.758 of 2006 filed this appeal seeking enhancement of

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal.

2. For convenience sake, hereinafter the parties will be referred to

as they were arrayed in MVOP.No.758 of 2006.

3. The claim in MVOP.No.758 of 2006 is filed under Sec.166 of

Motor Vehicle Act claiming for compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-

along with interest for the injuries and disability sustained by

the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident.

4. It is a case of the claimant/petitioner that on 03.05.2006 while

the petitioner was travelling as a pillion rider on the motorcycle

at about 11.45AM, the bus bearing number AP10Z7858 belongs

to the respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and

negligent manner with high speed as a result of which the

petitioner sustained grievous injuries and other lacerated

injuries.

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

5. The respondent filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition and contending that there was no negligence on the part of their bus driver.

6. On behalf of claimants PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1

to A17 documents are marked and on behalf of respondent no

evidence was let in by it.

7. After considering the evidence on record the tribunal held that

accident was due to negligence of the driver of the bus and he is

liable to pay the compensation amount.

8. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellant and the

respondent and perused the record.

9. The main contention of the appellant/claimant is that the

learned tribunal below erred in taking the disability of 20% as

per Ex.A17 issued by the medical board RIMS, Kadapa, the

disability is assessed as 40%. The tribunal below ought to have

awarded Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses and

Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges and ought to have taken

the income of appellant Rs.3,900/- per month.

10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the

findings and observations of the leaned Tribunal.

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

11. Now the point for determination is whether the award passed by

the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and it requires

enhancement ?

POINT:

12. After considering the appeal grounds and submissions made on

behalf of both sides it can be seen that there is no dispute as to

the occurrence of the accident and the liability of the respondent

to pay the compensation amount as the respondent has not

preferred any appeal or cross objections questioning the findings

or observations made by the learned tribunal and the said

findings became final. Both counsels addressed their arguments

only on the quantum of compensation and in view of this

admitted position it is unnecessary to narrate the factual aspects

of the case in detail.

13. As seen from the award passed by the tribunal it has granted

compensation amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and

suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation and Rs.15,000/-

towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards extra

nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards assistance during the period

of treatment and towards the disability it awarded an amount of

Rs.1,08,000/- and in total it awarded Rs.1,70,800/-.

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

14. The finding of the tribunal that the petitioner is aged 40 years as

per the petition and as per the wound certificate also is also not

disputed. But the tribunal observed that the multiplier

applicable for the age group in between 41 to 45 years is 14 as

per the observation in Sarala Verma and others Vs. Delhi

Transport Corporation and another1. But in the said decision it is

observed that the multiplier for the age group in between 36 to

40 years is 15 and as such this court is of view that the tribunal

committed wrong in applying the multiplier 14 instead of 15.

After considering the evidence on record the tribunal has taken

that the income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month.

15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and

another2 observed that the courts which are enjoined with a duty

of arriving at a just compensation will have to decide the same

following well accepted principles of determination of

compensation. A reading of said judgment shows that the doctor

who treated the injured or who examined him subsequently to

his permanent disability can give evidence only in regard the

extent of permanent disability. The loss of earning capacity is

something that will have to be assessed by the Tribunal with

reference to the evidence in entirety. It is also settled principle

2009 ACJ 1298

2011 ACJ 1

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

that the provisions of the motor vehicle act makes it clear that

the award must be just, it means that compensation should do

to the extent possible fully and adequately restore the claimant

to the position prior to the accident. A reading of the order of the

tribunal shows that it has accepted the case of petitioner with

regard to disability sustained by him by taking into

consideration of Ex.A17 physical disability certificate. The

tribunal after considering the medical evidence assessed the

functional disability 20%. After considering the nature of injuries

and disability sustained by the petitioner, this court is of view

that the tribunal has correctly assessed the functional disability

at 20%. In a decision of High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in

Gopalappa Vs. Kanduluru Sankara Reddy and another3, in a case

relating to the disability observed as follows.

"in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Pappu Deo Yadav vs. Naresh Kumar, 2020 ACJ 2695 (SC), the claimant is entitled for addition of 40 percent of the assessed income towards future prospects".

16. By following the observations made in the above referred

decision, this court is of view that the claimant is entitled for

compensation amount of Rs.36,000/- + Rs.14,400 = Rs.50,400/-

X 15 X 20% = Rs.1,51,200/- and out of it the compensation

amount awarded under this head i.e., Rs.1,08,000/- is to be

deducted and thereby the petitioner is entitled for the enhanced

2022 ACJ 1427

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

amount of Rs.43,200/-.

17. For the above reasons apart from the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal petitioner is also entitled for the additional compensation amount under the head of disability i.e., Rs.43,200/- and it has to be added to the compensation amount awarded by the tribunal and thereby the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,70,800/- + Rs.43,200/- = 2,14,000/-.

18. For the reasons stated above this court is of view that petitioner is entitled to enhancement compensation amount of Rs.2,14,000/- together with interest as awarded by the tribunal.

19. Resultantly the appeal is partly allowed without costs by fixing the compensation amount of Rs.2,14,000/- by increasing from Rs.1,70,800/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondent is directed to deposit the balance compensation amount within one month from the date of this order. In all other aspects the order passed by the Tribunal is unaltered. The petitioner is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount on deposit by filing proper application before the Tribunal. To the aforesaid extent the order of the tribunal is modified.

20. Miscellaneous petitions if any pending shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO Date : 16.09.2022 BV/KGM

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.MALLIKARJUNA RAO

MACMA.No.32 OF 2012

Date : 16.09.2022

BV/KGM