Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Kuncham Munemma vs B.Srinivasula Reddy Anr on 2 January, 2024
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
Page 1 of 11
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 OF 2012
Between: -
Kuncham Munemma
...Appellant/Claimant
And
B.Srinivasula Reddy and another
...Respondents
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri T.Diwakar Reddy, learned counsel
representing on behalf of Sri/Smt.P.Rajani Reddy, learned
counsel for the appellant/claimant and Sri Penumaka
Venkata Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/
Insurance Company.
2. This appeal directed by the appellant/claimant,
challenging the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2010 passed
in M.V.O.P.No.168 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal - cum - District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur
(hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal').
3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the
proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of
convenience and clarity.
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
4. The claimant filed the application under Section 166
of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act')
claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for
personal injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle
accident occurred on 15.12.2003 in front of Church on
Yerraguntla-Proddatur main road, whereunder the tractor
bearing registration No.AP04 D 3415 belonging to the
respondent No.1 came from Yerraguntla side in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed the claimant; as a result,
claimant fell down and suffered right femur fracture and
also other injuries on her person; the claimant was shifted
to the Government Hospital, Proddatur where she was
treated as an inpatient for a period of one (01) month; it
was found that the upper part of the right femur was
fractured and the upper part right hip of the femur was
damaged due to the fracture; surgery was conducted and
iron plate was implanted to treat the damage of the right
hip; on account of personal injuries suffered, she was
unable to manage and the claimant sold the she-buffaloes
and lost the income on the milk business and suffered loss.
Hence, the claimant filed the claim petition.
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
5. The owner/insured of the offending vehicle i.e.,
respondent No.1 remain ex parte. The respondent No.2/
Insurer filed counter contending that there was no
negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and that,
the claimant did not suffer any loss of income on account of
the injuries sustained in the accident and compensation
claimed by the claimant is excessive.
6. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions,
framed the following issues for trial:
1. Whether the accident occurred on 15.12.2003 at
about 4.00 PM due to rash and negligent driving
of the driver of Tractor bearing No.AP-04-D-
3415?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for
compensation?
3. To what relief?
7. The claimant, in order to prove her case, examined
herself as P.W.1, examined the Doctor, who treated her and
issued Disability Certificate, as P.W.2 and also examined
another person viz., B.Chandra Muni Reddy regarding her
income. Claimant filed ten (10) documents which are
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10. On behalf of respondentNo.2,
neither any witness examined nor document was exhibited.
8. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of claimant,
P.W.2/Doctor and P.W.3, assessed the loss of earnings of
the claimant on account of the injuries at Rs.35,100/- on
the ground that the percentage of disability be taken as
15%. The Tribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.6,000/-
towards grievous injury; Rs.2,000/- towards simple injury;
Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/-
towards extra nourishment and attendant charges.
Therefore, the Tribunal, in all awarded a sum of
Rs.51,100/- and rounded the same to Rs.51,500/- towards
just compensation against the claim of Rs.3,50,000/-.
9. The claimant filed the appeal challenging the
quantum of amount awarded by the learned Tribunal
contending that the compensation awarded is not a just
compensation and it is on lower side.
10. Learned counsel for the claimant would submit that
the evidence of claimant established that she was doing
milk business prior to the date of accident and earning
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
Rs.4,000/- per month and after the accident, due to
physical disability, she could not carry the milk business
and wound up her business, as a result, she suffered 100%
loss of income, but the Tribunal awarded only 15% of the
income towards loss of future income on account of
physical disability; therefore, it requires reconsideration.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company would submit that the Tribunal rightly assessed
the physical disability at 15% in view of conflict between
Ex.A.5 Disability Certificate issued by the Private Surgeon
and Ex.A.9 issued by the Doctor from Medical Board and
assessed the disability at 15%, accordingly, awarded loss of
income on account of physical disability; Therefore, there
are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the
learned Tribunal.
12. Learned counsel would further submit that the
learned Tribunal did not believe the evidence of P.W.3 with
regard to income earned by the claimant before the accident
and notionally considered the income at Rs.50/- per day
and assessed the compensation.
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points
that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as
under:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by the
learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-
District Court, Kadapa at Proddatur passed in
M.V.O.P.No.168 of 2005 dated 21.10.2010 is not
a just compensation and does the Order and
Decree passed by the learned Tribunal warrants
interference of this Court?
2. To what relief?
POINT N O.1:
14. The evidence of claimant on oath before the Tribunal
would establish that she was doing milk business by
maintaining she-buffaloes, prior to the accident. The
Tribunal partly believed the evidence of P.W.3 with regard
to the quantum of income earned by the claimant.
15. The evidence of P.W.2 i.e., Doctor of Government
Hospital, who treated the claimant initially when she was
admitted in the Government Hospital, would disclose that
the claimant sustained fracture to the right femur at hip
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
joint and on account of the said injury, right hip was
damaged and to set right the same, operation was
conducted and steel plate was fixed. The evidence of P.W.2
also disclose that on account of the above injury, the
physical disability suffered by the claimant is 30%
extending to the limb and that, she will suffer pain in the
right hip while walking and she may not be in a position to
carry on the milk business.
16. The evidence of claimant would disclose that
subsequent to treatment she suffering from pain in the
right hip while walking. It is pertinent to note down that the
learned Commissioner, who recorded the evidence of
claimant, also observed that the claimant feeling pain while
walking. The evidence of claimant would disclose that she
abandoned the milk business subsequent to the accident.
17. Therefore, the facts and circumstances would disclose
that she cannot walk freely. In those circumstances, she
could not continue the milk business on her own by
maintaining she-buffaloes, as she cannot take she-
buffaloes for grazing or draw milk from the she-buffaloes.
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
For that purpose, she requires the assistance of another
person. Hence, she has to incur expenditure towards labour
charges, to maintain she-buffaloes and draw the milk.
18. The accident was occurred in the year 2003.
Considering the prevailing rates this Court is of the opinion
that Rs.50/- per day can be considered as labour charges
payable to a worker, to take care of the she-buffaloes
maintained by the claimant, to carry the milk business.
Therefore, the monthly amount payable to the worker is
Rs.1,500/- per month; annual amount payable is
Rs.18,000/-. The age of the claimant is 46 years at the time
of accident. The multiplier '13' is applicable for the persons
in the age group of '46-50 years' as per the Judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs.
Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others 1. Hence,
the loss of future earnings on account of physical disability
is Rs.2,34,000/- (i.e., Rs.18,000/- x 13).
19. Learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.13,000/-
towards injuries and 'pain and suffering'. Considering the
1 2009 ACJ 1298.
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
nature of injury, surgery, pain suffered by the claimant, he
can be awarded a sum of Rs.27,000/-, in addition to the
compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal.
20. Therefore, in all the claimant is entitled to
Rs.2,34,000 + 27,000 + 51,500 = Rs.3,12,500/- towards
just compensation for the personal injuries sustained in the
motor accident.
21. The claimant is entitled to interest on the amount
awarded towards compensation under Section 171 of the
Act. Considering the period of date of accident, which was
occurred in the year 2003, prevailing rates of interest and
in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat
Johal2, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rate
of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit
holds good.
22. In the light of the above, the appeal is liable to be
allowed in part modifying the Order and Decree of the
2 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC)
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
learned Tribunal holding that the claimant is entitled to
Rs.3,12,500/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the
date of petition till the date of deposit. Point No.1 is
answered accordingly.
POINT N O.2:
23. In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in
M.A.C.M.A.No.1802 of 2012 is liable to be 'partly allowed'.
24. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal is 'partly allowed' by
modifying the Order and Decree dated 21.10.2010 passed
in M.V.O.P.No.168 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Kadapa at Proddatur,
holding that the appellant/claimant is entitled to a
compensation of Rs.3,12,500/- (Rupees three lakhs, twelve
thousand, and five hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit,
instead of Rs.51,500/-, awarded by the learned Tribunal.
25. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to
deposit the compensation amount within eight (08) weeks
from the date of the judgment, and in the event of the 2nd
respondent/Insurance Company already deposited some
MACMA No.1802 of 2012 BVLNC, J
Date 02.01.2024
amount, the said amount be excluded, and the balance
amount shall be deposited within above said period from
the date of Judgment.
26. On such deposit, the appellant/claimant is permitted
to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest
thereon. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if
any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI
2nd January 2024.
DNB
