V.Ramulu, vs V.Radha Bai,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6312 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No. 2528 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the

claimant before the Court below, assailing the order and decree of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional Chief Judge,

City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'the tribunal') passed in

O.P.No. 1638 of 2007, dated 08.06.2009.

Vide aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount

of Rs.2,90,000/- towards compensation to the appellant-claimant

against the respondents herein who are owner and insurer of the

offending vehicle i.e., Maruti Car bearing No. AP 10J 9948, jointly

and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5%

per annum from the date of filing the petition till realization of

the amount for the injuries received by him in a road accident

that occurred on 14.01.2007.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-clamant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

The only contention of the learned counsel for the

appellant-claimant is that in order to establish the fact that on

account of the injuries suffered by the appellant, he had suffered

permanent disability at 40%, Ex.A.8, disability certificate, was

produced and the same was substantiated with the evidence of

P.W.2, the doctor, who categorically deposed that the claimant

sustained 40% disability. However, the tribunal without there

being any valid reason brushed aside the said evidence and did

not award the compensation under the head of disability merely

because he was government employee. It is contended that the

claimant is only an attender and the disability susained in the

accident definitely affect his working performance and future

promotional aspects. Therefore, the learned counsel prays to

award just and reasonable compensation under the head of

disability, duly taking into account the monthly income of the

appellant and applying multiplier '14' considering his age.

The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 2 sought to sustain the impugned award

contending that P.W.2 is not a government doctor and that Ex.A.8

is not issued by competent Medical Board and therefore, the

tribunal has rightly rejected the claim under the head of disability

and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said

findings arrived at by the tribunal.

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner

in which the accident took place has become final as the

same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of

the offending vehicle. Even the learned counsel for the

appellant is not disputing the quantum of compensation

awarded by the tribunal except the rejection of claim under

the head permanent disability.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to consider the aspect

whether or not the claimant is entitled for compensation under

the head of loss of income due to disability. As seen from the

medical record, the claimant had sustained (i) fracture of shaft

lower 3rd right femur; (ii) fracture of middle 3rd left femur; and

(iii) fracture of right tibial fracture. The same is spoken to by the

doctor, P.W.2 who gave treatment to PW1/claimant. He further

deposed that the injuries suffered by the claimant are grievous in

nature. Ex.A.8 is the disability certificate, whereunder, the doctor

has opined that the claimant had sustained 40% permanent

disability. Merely because, the claimant is holding a permanent

nature of job, it cannot be a ground to deny the claim for loss of

income due to disability, more particularly, when the claimant is

a Class-IV employee. However, considering the evidence of

P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A.8 and nature of injuries, this Court is

inclined to fix the disability suffered by the claimant at 15%.

Ex.A.9, salary certificate, discloses that the claimant was earning

Rs.10,000/- per month. His age was 41 years by the time of

accident. Hence, under the head of loss of income due to

disability, the claimant is awarded a sum of Rs.2,52,000/-

(Rs.10,000 x 12 x 14 x 15/100). The amount of Rs.2,90,000/-

awarded by the tribunal under other heads and the rate of

interest awarded thereon are not interfered with. Thus, in all, the

claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.5,42,000/-.

The M.A.C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the quantum of

compensation awarded by the tribunal from Rs.2,90,000/- to

Rs.5,42,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the

rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the order passed by the

tribunal till the date of realization. The amount shall be

deposited within a period of two months from the date of receipt

of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is

permitted to withdraw the said amount. No order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

__________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

01.12.2022 tsr

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No. 2528 of 2014

DATE: 01-12-2022