Mangalagiri Gandhi, Nalgonda ... vs K Mattaiah, Nalgonda Dist Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 6361 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A. No.3384 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda at Miryalguda in O.P.

No.780 of 2005, dated 08.03.2007, the present appeal is filed by

the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by

the Tribunal.

2. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to the

petitioner, on 30-05-2005 the petitioner was proceeding on a

motorcycle bearing No. AP.24.B.8868 from Miryalguda to go to his

village Kothanandikonda and when he reached the outskirts of

Tripuraram village at about 4-00 p.m., near Kalyani Rice Mill, one

Tractor and trailer bearing No. AP.24.B.9286 and 9287 came in

rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed his

motorcycle from the opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner

sustained fracture on right femur, comminuted fracture of 1/3rd

right shaft tibia, fracture of distal end of right radius, grievous

injuries on right wrist, right thigh, right knee, right leg and

injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to Kamala

MGP, J MACMA.No.3384 of 2014

Orthopedic Hospital, Miryalguda. Thus, he is claiming

compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads.

3. Respondent No.1 set ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident and the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner and further contended that the

claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner received injuries in the road accident, if so, whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailer bearing registration No. AP 24 B 9286 and AP.24.B.9287 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, and if so, what amount and from whom respondent?

3) To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner,

PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A6. On

behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witnesses

were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,31,200/-

MGP, J MACMA.No.3384 of 2014

towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest

at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit

to the appellant-claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-The National

Insurance Company Limited. Perused the material available on

record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries

received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has awarded

very meager amount under various heads.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the

learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3384 of 2014

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP 24 B 9286 and

AP.24.B.9287. Now the only dispute in the present appeal is with

regard to the quantum of compensation.

11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of the

PW-2 Doctor who treated the petitioner shows that PW-1 came to

his hospital on 30-05-2005 at 7-00 p.m. by road traffic accident

with the injuries i.e., 1) laceration on right wrist dorsum, 2)

laceration on right thigh 1/4th, 3) laceration on anterior aspect of

right knee, 4) wound on right leg upper 3rd, 5) laceration on right

heel, 6) open comminuted supra cadilyar fracture right femur, 7)

open comminuted fracture of right tibia and 8) open comminuted

fracture of right radius distal end and out of the above injuries,

five are simple injuries and three are grievous injuries. PW-1 was

treated as inpatient for 15 days and he spent Rs.30,000/- for his

treatment. He had operated PW-1 and inserted implants of right

leg and he cannot do hard regular duties and cannot move easily.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3384 of 2014

However, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the nature

of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is very

less. Therefore, an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards

pain and suffering. Further an amount of Rs.15,000/- is

awarded towards extra nourishment, transportation and

attendant charges.

12. With regard to the disability, PW-3 Civil Surgeon Specialist,

deposed that the petitioner appeared before the District Medical

Board and his disability has been estimated as 50%, as he has

inflected supra condylar fracture of right femur with non-union,

united fracture of proximal and malunited collies fracture of 16

months duration. However, considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, the

Tribunal has rightly fixed the disability of PW-1 at 35%.

According to the petitioner, he was a RMP doctor and the accident

occurred during the year 2005 and as there was no income proof,

the Tribunal taken the income of petitioner at Rs.2,000/- per

month which is very less. Therefore, the income of the petitioner

can be taken at Rs.3,000/-. As the claimant was aged about 45

years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of

MGP, J MACMA.No.3384 of 2014

the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi

Transport Corporation1 would be "14". Thus, the future loss of

income due to 35% disability comes to Rs.3,000 x 12 x 14 x

35/100 = Rs.1,76,400/-, which the petitioner/claimant is

entitled. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,11,400.00 .

13. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,31,200/- to Rs.2,11,400/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such

deposit, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount

without furnishing any security. The petitioner is not entitled for

interest during the delay period. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 02.12.2022 pgp

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)