The Regional Manager vs P.Narasimha Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 4259 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.637 of 2018

JUDGMENT :

The appeal is arising out of the order dated 21.08.2017, in

MVOP.No.81 of 2014 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the OP.

3. The appeal is filed by the RTC. The O.P. is filed by the

claimant before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the

injuries sustained by him in the accident that occurred on

19.10.2013.

4. On the date of accident at about 1.30 p.m., the claimant was

travelling on his motorcycle bearing No.AP-22-AM-1698 and

when he reached the limits of Obulapalli village, the RTC bus

bearing No.AP-29-Z-793 driven by its driver at a high speed in a

rash and negligent manner, dashed against the claimant, as a result,

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

the claimant fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries

and fracture to his leg. He was immediately shifted to SVS

hospital, Mahbubnagar and from there to NIMS hospital,

Hyderabad, where, he was treated as in-patient from 20.10.2013 to

09.11.2013.

5. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, has come to a conclusion that the claimant was

entitled for a compensation of Rs.9,54,046/-. Being aggrieved by

the said order, the RTC has preferred this appeal.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

7. The appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation

granted by the Tribunal, and therefore, the appreciation would be

only with respect to the said aspect.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-RTC

that the Tribunal, without considering the law laid down by the

Apex Court, have granted compensation under different heads on

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

the higher side, and therefore, prayed to grant appropriate

compensation to the claimant.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant

contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence on

record, have granted proper amounts under appropriate heads and

prayed to confirm the orders of the Tribunal.

10. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no

dispute as to the manner in which the accident had occurred. The

claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and PWs.3 to 5 are the

Doctors, who treated the claimant and issued disability certificate.

The Tribunal have come to a conclusion that the claimant has lost

his earnings for a period of three years and has taken the loss of

income @ Rs.10,000/- per month and granted Rs.3,60,000/-

(Rs.10,000 X 36) under the said head.

11. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following

heads:

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

1. Loss of income Rs.3,60,000/-

2.    Medical Expenses                        Rs.97,546/-
3.    Loss of amenities                       Rs.3,00,000/-
4.    Attendant & Extra-nourishment           Rs.30,000/-
5.    Pain and suffering                      Rs.1,00,000/-
6.    Transportation charges                  Rs.66,500/-
      TOTAL                                   Rs.9,54,046/-

12. On perusal of the documentary evidence, it is evident that

the claimant sustained grievous injuries and fractures. Exs.A-7 and

A-8 disclose that the claimant underwent treatment as in-patient for

19 days and also underwent treatment in the year 2014 for another

10 days. But, the Tribunal has granted loss of income for a period

of three years merely basing on the oral evidence of the claimant.

It is pertinent to mention that Ex.A-9 is the original disability

certificate issued by PW-5, a Civil Surgeon of Government

Hospital and the disability is assessed to 60% to the right lower

limb of the claimant.

13. It is the specific contention of the counsel for the

appellant/RTC that as the disability certificate on record, the

tribunal ought to have granted compensation taking into

consideration the disability sustained by the claimant, instead of

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

granting amounts, towards loss of earnings for a period of three

years and also for loss of amenities, even in the absence of proper

corroborating or documentary evidence. It is also urged by the

learned counsel for the appellant that the income of the claimant is

also disputed as there is no pleading before the Court either in the

claim petition or in the criminal complaint/report that the claimant

was working in the Company of PW-2, and therefore, prayed to fix

appropriate monthly income of the claimant as an Electrician.

14. Ex.A-11 is the salary certificate issued by PW-2, which

disclose that the claimant worked as an Electrician in VSES India

Pvt. Limited prior to the accident and was drawing a salary of

Rs.10,000/- per month. Even assuming for a moment that the loss

of earnings of the claimant is for three years, as the disability

certificate i.e. Ex.A-9 disclose that the claimant sustained 60% of

disability, then the loss of earnings would be Rs.2,16,000/- (Taking

the salary of claimant as Rs.10,000/-, 60% would come to

Rs.6,000/-. Thus, Rs.6,000/- x 36 months = Rs.2,16,000/-).

Therefore, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,16,000/- only, towards

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

loss of earnings. Admittedly, no reasons are assigned by the

Tribunal while granting compensation under different heads.

15. As stated supra, the claimant was treated as in-patient in the

hospital for 29 days. Even in the absence of proper evidence as to

the loss of amenities, the Tribunal has granted Rs.3,00,000/-, which

is on higher side. Therefore, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- can be

granted towards loss of amenities, considering the fact that the

claimant undergone treatment as in-patient for 29 days. The

Tribunal have also granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards

pain and suffering, which is also on higher side. No doubt the

claimant underwent pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by

him in the accident and as his right leg was deformed, a sum of

Rs.75,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering.

16. As far as the other amounts granted by the Tribunal are

concerned, the same need not be interfered with, as they are not on

higher side and the medical expenses granted to the claimant are

based on the documentary evidence.

GAC, J MACMA.No.637 of 2018

17. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for compensation under

the following heads:

 1.     Loss of earnings                          Rs.2,16,000/-
 2.     Medical Expenses                          Rs.97,546/-
 3.     Loss of amenities                         Rs.1,00,000/-
 4.     Attendant & Extra-nourishment             Rs.30,000/-
 5.     Pain and suffering                        Rs.75,000/-
 6.     Transportation charges                    Rs.66,500/-
        TOTAL                                     Rs.5,85,046/-

18. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed and the

claimant/respondent is entitled to the compensation of

Rs.5,85,046/- only, payable by the appellant within two months

from the date of receipt of this order and the claimant is permitted

to withdraw the entire amount as the accident occurred in the year

2013.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 24.08.2022

ajr