Telangana High Court
Mohammed Khan vs The Managing Director And Another on 7 December, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.2196 of 2011
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 07.06.2011 in O.P.No.888 of 2009 on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional
Chief Judge, City Criminal Courts, Hyderabad, for the injuries
sustained by the appellant, who has filed claim for Rs.6,00,000/-
together with interest and costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. On 30.03.2009 at about 3.00 p.m., while the claimant was
going on his scooter bearing No.AP-28-AF-8342 from Patancheru
to Kancherla village, when he reached Begumpet of Dowlthabad,
Ranga Reddy District, the RTC bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-1719,
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against
the scooter of the appellant/claimant, due to which, he fell down
and sustained fractures to his right leg, right fore-arm and other
injuries.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
4. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total
compensation of Rs.5,23,200/- along with costs and interest @9%
per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
Seeking enhancement of compensation, the claimant has filed this
appeal. As the appeal is with respect to quantum of compensation,
the appreciation of evidence would be with respect to it only.
5. Heard both sides and perused the record.
6. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Claimant contended
that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the
claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month and Rs.200/- per day towards
batta, though it is corroborated by the evidence of PW-4, under
whom, the claimant worked as Lorry driver and prayed to enhance
the compensation. It is also contended by the learned counsel for
the appellant that the claimant is entitled for compensation towards
100% loss of earnings though he sustained 60% disability due to
the amputation of his leg and also entitled for compensation under
the other notional heads.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the RTC
contended that there is no error or irregularity in the orders passed
by the Tribunal, as it has granted Rs.5,23,200/-, whereas, the claim
of the claimant itself is Rs.6,00,000/- before the Tribunal and
accordingly prayed to dismiss the appeal.
8. On perusal of the record, it is evident that the O.P. was filed
by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- only, and
the Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads:
1. Artificial limb Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-
3. Permanent disability Rs.4,03,200/-
TOTAL Rs.5,23,200 /-
9. It is relevant to mention that the Tribunal has not considered
the income of the claimant as Rs.7,000/- per month apart from
Rs.200/- batta per day, though Ex.A-15/Salary certificate was
issued by PW-4. It is the specific finding of the Tribunal that
PW-4, who is alleged to be the owner of the lorry under whom the
claimant worked, did not produce the salary register to prove that
the claimant was employed as lorry driver and worked under him.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
10. There is no error or irregularity in the orders of the Tribunal
while discarding the evidence of PW-4 and Ex.A-15. Admittedly,
Ex.A-14 i.e. the driving licence of the claimant which discloses
that the claimant had licence to drive heavy vehicles. Therefore,
the occupation of the claimant cannot be disbelieved. The accident
occurred in the year 2009. As per the judgment of Apex Court in
Syed Sadiq and others v. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Co. Ltd.,1 the income of the deceased was taken as
Rs.6,500/- per month for the accident which occurred in the year,
2010 for a vegetable vendor. Taking into consideration the above
proposition of the Apex Court and the cost of living of the year
2009, the notional income of the claimant has been fixed as
Rs.6,500/- per month.
11. The evidence of PW-2 discloses that the claimant suffered
fractures to his right leg, right fore-arm and injuries to other parts
of the body and the right leg of the claimant was amputated upto
knee level and his right fore-arm was operated. Ex.A-3 discloses
that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries. As per the
2014 ACJ 627
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi
Transport Corporation & another2, the claimant is entitled for
future prospects of 40%. If 40% is added to the income of the
claimant, it would come to Rs.9,100/- (Rs.6,500 + Rs.2,600). The
age of the claimant as on the date of accident was 42 years. As per
the above judgment in Sarla Verma's case (2 supra), the
appropriate multiplier would be '14' for the age group of 41 to 45
years. Therefore, the annual income of the claimant would come to
Rs.1,09,200/- (Rs.9,100 X 12).
12. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that
the claimant is entitled for 100% loss of earnings though he
sustained 60% of disability, but the said contention is not tenable,
as the right leg of the claimant alone was amputated. There is no
evidence on record to prove that the claimant cannot earn by doing
any other business or other works. Apart from it, the Tribunal has
granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards artificial limb.
Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there cannot be
100% loss of earnings to the claimant. Considering Ex.A-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
12/disability certificate, 60% of disability can be taken for
calculating the loss of earnings. Hence, the claimant is entitled for
an amount of Rs.9,17,280/- (Rs.1,09,200 X 14 X 60/100).
13. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
1. Loss of earnings including Rs.9,17,280/-
disability
2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.5,000/-
4. Medical expenses (As per Exs.A- Rs.8,881/-
9 to A-11)
5. Artificial leg (As per Ex.A-11) Rs.1,61,300/-
6. Extra-nourishment Rs.5,000/-
7. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.11,57,461 /-
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.5,23,200/-
to Rs.11,57,461/-, with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a.
from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the
respondents/RTC within two months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee, as
the accident occurred in the year 2009.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.2196 of 2011
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 07.12.2022
ajr
