S Savaranna vs A Brahma Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 6402 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

            M.A.C.M.A.Nos.694 of 2017 and 1272 of 2018

COMMON JUDGMENT:


      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.694 of 2017 filed by the Oriental

Insurance    Company      Limited     challenging     the   quantum   of

compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.1272 of 2018 filed by the claimant

seeking enhancement of compensation, are directed against the very

same award and decree, dated 31.05.2016 made in M.V.O.P.No.1233

of 2012 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City

Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").


2.    For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.    The facts, in issue, are as under:

      The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, claiming

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the

petitioner in the accident. According to the petitioner, he was aged 50

years, used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month as a Security Guard at Reddy

Labs in the premises of Srinivas Complex, Ameerpet. On 17.04.2011

at about 4-00 p.m. while he was returning from his duty, he boarded

an RTC bus at Ameerpet and got down at Karimikanagar bus stop and

proceeding towards his residence by walk, in the mean time Setwin

bus bearing No. AP 09 Y 7493 being driven by its driver came in a

rash and negligent manner and hit the petitioner near Tirumala Wine

Shop, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries on his left arm.

Initially he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital for treatment, and after first

aid he was shifted to NIMS, where he was treated as outpatient for one

day as the doctors demanded him to Rs.50,000/- towards advance

thereafter he was admitted as inpatient and commenced the treatment

as inpatient. Since the petitioner is poor, he could not offer costly

treatment at NIMS and he went to Osmania General Hospital and got

admitted as inpatient and took treatment. Subsequently he took

treatment as outpatient at Osmania General Hospital as well as other

doctors at Krishnanagar, because the amputated stump did not heal

and that he spent Rs.20,000/- towards treatment, Rs.5,000/- towards

attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- for transportation. After the

accident, his left hand was amputated up to shoulder joint and as such,

he got 90% disability and lost his job. Therefore, he is seeking

compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 and 2,

who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place, nature

of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him.

It is further contended that the compensation claimed is excessive and

exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the setwin bus bearing No. AP 09 Y 7493 causing injuries to the petitioner?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A15 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf of

the respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined, however, copy of

insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.

7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the setwin bus bearing No. AP 09 Y 7493 and

awarded the total compensation of Rs.22,44,662/- with costs and

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

deposit against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

6. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the

material available on record.

7. The main contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel for

the respondent No.2-Insurance Company is that the compensation

awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and prays to set aside the

Order passed by the Tribunal.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though

the claimant established that the petitioner has sustained permanent

disability, the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount.

9. With regard to the manner of accident, there is no dispute.

However, considering the evidence of PW-1 coupled with the

documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal rightly held

that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the offending vehicle.

10. With regard to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioner, he sustained permanent disability due to the amputation of

left upper limb up to the shoulder. In support of his case, PW-2,

Doctor who treated the petitioner deposed that he performed surgery

under general anesthesia and his left shoulder was disarticulated.

PW.3 deposed that on 9.3.2016 their prosthetist and Orthotist

examined the petitioner and issued Ex.A14 estimation for the left

shoulder disarticulation, MYO electric system, which was estimated at

Rs.4,93,950/- for artificial limb. PW-4 deposed that the petitioner was

working in their organization as a security guard since 2002 and

continued till the date of accident and he was drawing salary of

Rs.8,800/- per month. PW-5 deposed that he examined the petitioner

and assessed the disability as 80% and the petitioner cannot perform

any activity of daily life with left upper limb. Therefore, through the

evidence of PWs.2 to 5, it is clearly established that the petitioner,

who is working as security guard in PW-4's organization has

sustained permanent disability at 80% due to amputation of left upper

limb due to the injuries caused in the accident. Further there is no

rebuttal evidence produced by the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company. Therefore, considering the disability sustained by the

petitioner, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner at

Rs.8,800/- per month, added 30% towards future prospectus and by

applying multiplier '13', awarded an amount of Rs.14,27,712/-.

Further the Tribunal also awarded the following amounts under

different heads;

1.   Medical expenses          and       extra : Rs. 20,000-00
     nourishment

2.   Pain and suffering                        : Rs.1,50,000-00

3. Loss of amenities, happiness and : Rs.1,50,000-00 enjoyment of life

4. Cost of artificial limb : Rs.4,93,950-00

5. Transport charges : Rs. 3,000-00

Thus in all the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.22,44,662/- under

all counts, which is just and reasonable. Therefore, in view of the

above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no valid

grounds to interfere with the cogent findings given by the Tribunal

and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly both the M.A.C.M.As. are dismissed. There shall

be no order as to costs.

13. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

05.12.2022 pgp