Kondi Satyanarayana Sattibabu,. ... vs M/S. Cargo Carriers Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 6417 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1474 of 2010

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.1050 of

2008, dated 16.06.2010 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-

XVIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

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

arrayed in the O.P.

3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the

claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in

the accident which occurred on 17.03.2008. The said accident

occurred at about 10.30 p.m., while the claimant was proceeding to

Ganpur on his cycle and when he reached Ellammagudi, the Lorry

bearing No.AP-28-U-9717 driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at a high speed, dashed against the cycle of the

claimant. As a result, the claimant sustained fracture injuries on

both his legs, head, forehead, pelvic fracture, laceration on stomach

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

and other grievous injuries all over the body and was shifted to

Gandhi hospital, Secunderabad.

4. Basing on the complaint given by the claimant, a case was

registered against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.110 of 2008

on the file of Patancheru Police Station for the offence punishable

under Section 338 of IPC. It is the specific averment in the claim

petition that the claimant was hale and healthy and was earning

Rs.5,000/- per month by doing idli business and was contributing

the same to the family. Further, he spent huge amounts towards his

medical expenses and sustained permanent disability and prayed to

enhance the compensation.

5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the respondents

disputing the manner of accident, injuries sustained by the claimant

and also about the liability of the Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,82,000/-.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the claimants have filed this appeal for

enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence

would be with respect to the quantum alone.

8. Heard both sides and perused the material on record.

9. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that initially,

claim was made for Rs.5,00,000/-, but I.A.No.1 of 2019 was filed

for amending the claim, which was ordered by this Court by

enhancing the claim from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/-. It is

contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal

has erred in considering the income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/-

per month instead of Rs.5,000/- per month and awarded only

Rs.1,00,000/- as lumpsum towards compensation for disability and

therefore, prayed to enhance the compensation

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company contended that there is no error or irregularity

in the orders of the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal by

confirming the orders of the Tribunal.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

11. There is no dispute as to the manner in which the accident

had occurred. It is the specific contention of the claimant that he

was aged 27 years at the time of the accident and was earning

Rs.5,000/- per month by doing idli business and due to the

accident, he sustained grievous injuries and had 100% of

permanent disability as his both legs were fractured. Admittedly,

there is no oral or documentary evidence before the Tribunal to

prove that the claimant is doing idli business and earning

Rs.5,000/- per month, except his sole testimony. Ex.A-9 is not the

disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, but it is issued

by one Dr.B.Ramakrishna i.e. PW-2. It is the specific evidence of

PW-2 that he examined the claimant on 09.11.2009 clinically and

radiologically and found fracture of the shaft femur right and left

and nailing was done. Further, left femur was grossly infected and

movements are restricted. The accident occurred on 17.03.2008

and after a span of one and half years, the certificate was issued by

PW-2, who has not treated him. The evidence of PW-2 further

discloses that he cannot say as to how the infection had occurred to

the femur. Therefore, Ex.A-9 cannot be given much weightage but

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

taking into consideration the oral evidence of PW-2, this Court is

of the considered view that the disability of the appellant can be

taken as 50%.

12. The Tribunal has granted the following amounts under

various heads:

         1. Pain and suffering     -       Rs.20,000/-
         2. Medical expenses       -       Rs.30,000/-
         3. Extra-nourishment      -       Rs.10,000/-
         4. Transportation         -       Rs.10,000/-
         5. Loss of earnings
            during the treatment   -       Rs.12,000/-
         6. Partial disability     -       Rs.1,00,000/-

                        TOTAL      -       Rs.1,82,000/-

13. As stated supra, there is no proof for the income of the

claimant. The oral evidence of PW-1/injured discloses that he was

doing idli business. The accident occurred in the year 2008.

Taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance

Co. Ltd1., the notional income of the claimant is fixed as

Rs.4,500/- per month. If 40% future prospects is added, it would

come to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). As stated supra, even in

(2011) 13 SCC 236

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

the absence of proper disability certificate, this Court has

considered the disability of the claimant as 50%. The appellant

was aged 27 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate

multiplier would be '17' for the age group of 26 to 30 years.

Therefore, the claimant/injured is entitled for an amount of

Rs.6,42,600/- towards loss of future income (Rs.6,300 X 12 X 17

X 50/100). Further, the claimant is also entitled for Rs.50,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and

Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards

attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment.

14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the

following heads;

      1. Loss of future income -            Rs.6,42,600/-
      2. Pain and suffering    -            Rs.50,000/-
      3. Medical expenses      -            Rs.30,000/-
      4. Extra-nourishment     -            Rs.10,000/-
      5. Transportation        -            Rs.10,000/-
      6. Attendant charges     -            Rs.10,000/-

                   TOTAL       -            Rs.7,52,600/-

15.   Accordingly,   the   appeal      is     allowed,   enhancing    the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,82,000/-

GAC, J MACMA.No.1474 of 2010

to Rs.7,52,600/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable

by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, within one month

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As the accident

occurred in the year 2008, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the

entire compensation amount, after duly paying the deficit Court

fee, if any.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 05.12.2022

ajr