Telangana High Court
The United India Insurance ... vs Tirmalapur Kistaiah And Another on 2 December, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2904 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
The appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree in
O.P.No.960 of 2000, dated 16.12.2004 on the file of Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga
Reddy.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the OP.
3. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company/2nd respondent
in the O.P.. The O.P. is filed before the Tribunal under Section
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the
accident that occurred on 08.03.2000.
4. On the date of accident, the claimant, who was a labour,
travelled in the lorry bearing No.AVT-1767 for loading and
unloading gravel. After unloading gravel, at about 4.00 p.m., when
the lorry reached Jaffarpalli Stone Crusher mill, the stepny tyre
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2904 of 2008
which was kept in the body of the lorry, suddenly got burst due to
which, the claimant along with other labors sustained grievous
injuries and the claimant underwent treatment in Osmania
Government hospital for a period of one month.
5. It is the specific contention of the claimant before the
Tribunal that he sustained fracture to his left leg both bones, apart
from other bleeding injuries all over the body due to the hit of the
burst tyre and disc and later could not perform any work due to
permanent disability and incurred huge amounts for medical
expenses.
6. A detailed counter was filed by the Insurance Company
denying the nature of the accident, the medical expenditure
incurred and also about contributory negligence on the part of the
claimant and prayed to dismiss the claim.
7. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, has granted compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the Insurance Company has
preferred this appeal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2904 of 2008
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the
record.
9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
there is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and the
Tribunal did not consider the said fact, and therefore, the claimant
is not entitled for the awarded amount in view of contributory
negligence and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner in which the accident occurred on
08.03.2000. The claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and
Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. Exs.A-1 and A-2 are the certified
copies of FIR and charge sheet, which clearly disclose that the
stepny tyre was loaded in the body of the lorry by the driver of the
lorry and the claimant and five others sat in the lorry as they are
engaged as labours for loading and unloading the gravel and due to
the burst of the tyre, the claimant and others sustained injuries and
further, the claimant received fracture to his left leg and therefore,
no negligence can be attributed to the claimant. It is pertinent to
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2904 of 2008
note that sitting on a tyre loaded in the body of the lorry cannot be
treated as contributory negligence. There is no error or irregularity
in the orders of the Tribunal as to the finding of negligence on the
part of the driver of the lorry and the order of the Tribunal with
respect to the finding of contributory negligence needs no
interference.
11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimant i.e.
the respondent in the appeal relied on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Surekha and others v. Santosh and others (2020 ACJ
2156), wherein, their Lordships have held that even in the appeals
filed by the insurance Company, compensation can be enhanced to
the claimant in the absence of cross appeal. Therefore, prayed to
enhance compensation in the present appeal.
12. It is pertinent to mention that initially the claim is for
Rs.1,50,000/- and later enhancement was being done by way of
amendment before the Tribunal for Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal
has taken the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- as per
Minimum Wages Act. As per the proposition laid down in
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2904 of 2008
Ramchandrappa's case, an amount of Rs.4,500/- can be fixed for
a coolie/labourer even in the absence of documentary evidence.
The evidence of the Doctor i.e. PW-2 disclose that the claimant
sustained 40% of disability which is corroborated by Ex.A-5/the
Certificate issued by the Medical Board. If 40% future prospects
is added, it would come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). As
the appellant was aged 35 years as on the date of accident, the
multiplier would be '16' for the age group of 31 to 35 years.
Therefore, the claimant/injured is entitled for loss of future income
i.e. Rs.4,83,840/- (Rs.6,300 X 12 X 16 X 40/100). Further, the
claimant is also entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.10,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant
charges and Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment.
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the
following heads;
1. Loss of future income - Rs.4,83,840/-
2. Pain and suffering - Rs.25,000/-
3. Extra-nourishment - Rs.5,000/-
4. Transportation - Rs.10,000/-
5. Attendant charges - Rs.5,000/-
TOTAL - Rs.5,28,840/-
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2904 of 2008
14. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,00,000/-
to Rs.5,28,840/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per
annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable
by the appellant/and respondent No.1 in the O.P. jointly and
severally, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. As the accident occurred in the year 2000, the claimant
is entitled to withdraw the entire amount, after duly paying the
deficit Court fee.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 02.12.2022
ajr
