Telangana High Court

M Machagiri, Nalgonda District vs M.Karunakar Reddy, Nalgonda ... on 6 December, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

         M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2309 of 2015 and 2152 of 2016

COMMON JUDGMENT:


        Since both the appeals are arising out of the same

judgment, they are heard together and being disposed of by this

common judgment.


2.      Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief

Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, made in O.P.No.1061 of

2010,    dated 24.05.2014, the      claimant preferred MACMA

No.2309 of 2015.        Whereas, MACMA No.2152 of 2016 is

preferred by the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited,

respondent No.2 before the Tribunal, challenging the very same

order and decree of the Tribunal on the ground that the

compensation awarded is excessive and exorbitant.

3. For the sake convenience, the parties, hereinafter, will be

referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

4. According to the pleadings in the O.P. filed by the

claimant, on 08.04.2009, at about 20.00 hours, while the

claimant was proceeding on his motorcycle and when he

reached near Anajipuram Village, Mothkur Mandal of Nalgonda

District, the offending vehicle i.e., tractor and trailor bearing

NO. AP 24F 1851 & 1852, owned by respondent No. 1, insured

with respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which,

the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He had

taken treatment at various hospitals, underwent operation for

fracture injuries and sustained disability. Therefore, he laid a

claim for Rs.6,50,000/- against the respondents towards

compensation under various heads.

5. Before the tribunal, while the respondent No. 1 stood ex

parte, the respondent No. 2 filed its counter denying the manner

of accident as projected by the claimant, income, avocation of

the claimant. The learned tribunal, having considered the claim

petition, counter, oral and documentary evidence brought on

record, allowed the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.6.50

lakhs.

6. Heard both sides and perused the material available on

record.

7. The learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant in

MACMA No.2309 of 2015 contends that the learned Tribunal

having held that the accident had occurred due to the rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and

having arrived at the total compensation of Rs.11,26,000/-,

erred in restricting the compensation to the amount claimed by

the claimant. It is contended that on account of fracture

injuries, the claimant sustained 90% permanent disability as

his right hand was not working. P.W.2, the Orthopedic Surgeon

at Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad, where the claimant took

treatment, deposed that ORIF was done for fracture humerus K-

Wire fixation for right clavicle and coracoil process by him and

in spite of proper treatment, the claimant is suffering with

permanent disability at 90%. Even P.W.5, the Civil Surgeon,

R.M.O., at Kamala Nehru Area Hospital, Nagarjuna Sagar,

deposed that the claimant is suffering with 90% disability. The

said evidence is further supported by Ex.A.5, disability

certificate, issued by the Medical Board. Therefore, taking into

consideration of 90% disability and considering Ex.A.13, salary

certificate, which is supported by P.W.4, the tribunal ought to

have awarded the just and reasonable compensation

irrespective of the claim made in the O.P.

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

Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No.2152 of 2016) has

contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in granting a sum of

Rs.6.50 lakhs towards compensation; that the tribunal erred in

taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-; and

that the tribunal ought not to have assessed the disability at

100%.

9. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the

accident and the rash and negligent driving of the offending

vehicle by its driver in causing the accident. As regards the

quantum of compensation, the evidence of doctors i.e., P.Ws.2 &

5 is to the effect that the claimant has suffered fracture of right

zygomatic maxillary complex with midipaltal split hematorma

right zygomatic arch with facial laceration. It is the evidence of

P.W.2 that under general anesthesia ORIF was done for fracture

humerus K-Wire fixation for right clavicle and coracoil process

by him and in spite of treatment, the claimant's right hand was

not working. Ex.A.5 is the disability certificate issued by the

competent Medical Board, which discloses that the claimant has

suffered 90% permanent disability. Thus, as the medical

evidence clearly establishes that the claimant has suffered 90%

permanent disability, this Court is inclined to accept the same.

10. As regards the income, according to the claimant, he was

working in Kapil Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., and was drawing a salary

of Rs.6,150/- per month and produced Ex.A.13 salary certificate

issued by Kapil Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. To substantiate Ex.A.3,

P.W.4 was examined, who deposed that the claimant was being

paid Rs.6,150/- per month as salary. Therefore, his monthly

income can safely be taken as Rs.6,000/- per month. As seen

from the record, the claimant was 26 years at the time of the

accident and therefore, to assess the loss of income on account

of permanent disability, the appropriate multiplier is 17. Thus,

the loss of dependency of the claimant on account of permanent

disability at 90% is determined at Rs.11,01,600/- (Rs.6,000/- x

12 x 17 x 90/100). That apart, as seen from Ex.A.6, hospital

bill issued by Sai Vani Hospital, Hyderabad, the claimant had

incurred Rs.1,45,000/- and as per Ex.A.12, medical bills, he

had spent Rs.5,000/- towards purchase of medicines.

Therefore, considering Exs.A.6 and A.12, the claimant is

awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards treatment and medicines. That

apart, considering the fact that the claimant had suffered two

grievous injuries, he is awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the

head of injuries. So also, under the head of transportation,

attendant charges and extra nourishment, the claimant is

awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Thus, in all, this Court is

inclined to award a sum of Rs.12,91,600/-, as against the

amount of Rs.6,50,000/- awarded by the tribunal.

11. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel for the

insurance company, respondent No. 2 contends that the

compensation now arrived at by this Court is more than the

amount what was claimed and what was determined by the

tribunal and therefore, prays this Court to restrict the

compensation to the amount what was claimed by the claimant.

In this regard, it is to be observed that In Laxman @ Laxman

Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance

Company Limited and another1, the Apex Court while

referring to the decision in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh2

held as under:

"It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274, in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident."

In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above,

the claimant(s) is/are entitled to claim more amount than what

was claimed originally. Further, the Motor Vehicles Act being a

beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimant

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

is a paramount consideration, the Courts should always

endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimant(s) to a just and

reasonable extent.

12. In the result, the appeal preferred by the claimant i.e.,

MACMA No.2309 of 2015 stands allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the tribunal from