Telangana High Court
Patha Lingam Patha Linganna vs G.Vijay Kumar 2 Ors on 9 December, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1681 of 2011
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 21.07.2005 in O.P.No.674 of 2000 on the
file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District
Judge, Adilabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The O.P. was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, claiming compensation of Rs.9,27,000/- from respondent
Nos.1 to 3 for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident
that occurred on 21.01.1998, at Dhanpur ghat at the turning on
N.H.7 road. The said accident occurred when the claimant was
proceeding to Indravelli from Adilabad, in a jeep bearing No.
AP-01-D-176, which was owned by the 1st respondent, driven by
the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner and dashed
against the lorry bearing No.2040, due to which, the claimant
sustained multiple injuries on his right leg and other parts of the
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
body. The claimant was shifted to Government headquarters
hospital at Adilabad, from there to Osmania General hospital and
from there to NIMS hospital, Hyderabad. The claimant underwent
treatment in the said hospitals, his right leg was operated by
inserting steel rods and later the right leg was shortened and as
such he cannot bend his leg. It is the specific contention that the
claimant incurred medical expenses to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/-. The
claimant was working as a Medical Representative and was earning
Rs.2,500/- per month apart from other allowances and that lost his
future earnings.
4. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted an amount of Rs.1,69,266/- 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.
5. Since this appeal is filed aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appreciation of
evidence will be only on that aspect.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Claimant contended
that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the
claimant as Rs.2,500/- per month and considered the income of the
claimant as Rs.1,500/- per month i.e. Rs.18,000/- per annum. It is
also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
claimant is entitled for compensation under the head of 'future loss
of earnings' and prayed to enhance the compensation under the
appropriate heads.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the
orders passed by the Tribunal, and accordingly prayed to dismiss
the appeal.
9. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following
heads:
1. Two fractures Rs.20,000/-
2. Extra-Nourishment Rs.20,000/-
3. Loss of earnings for three months Rs.9,000/-
4. Permanent disability Rs.48,600/-
5. Medical Expenses Rs.71,666/-
TOTAL Rs.1,69,266/-
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
10. It is relevant to mention that the Tribunal has not considered
the income of the claimant as Rs.2,500/- per month, inspite of the
oral evidence of PW-3, who is the Proprietor of Ganesh Medical
Hall, Adilabad. The evidence of PW-3 clearly disclose that the
claimant used to approach his medical shop as a Medical
Representative. The evidence of PW-1 disclose that he worked as
a Medical/Sales Representative under Ramakrishna
Pharmaceuticals Distributors, Kamareddy. Ex.A-20 is the salary
certificate, which disclose that the claimant was drawing a salary of
Rs.2,500/- per month. But the Tribunal discarded Ex.A-20, as the
Proprietor of the said Firm was not examined. Taking into
consideration the oral evidence of PW-3 and Ex.A-20, this Court is
of the view that the income of the claimant can be taken as
Rs.2,500/- per month.
11. The evidence of PW-2, who is the Associate Professor of
NIMS hospital, disclose that the claimant was treated in NIMS
hospital who got operated on 03.06.1999 for the right leg and the
claimant's leg was shortened by 1 cm with stiffness in knee and he
has suffered 30% partial disability to his lower limb. Ex.A-5 is the
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
disability certificate issued by the NIMS hospital, Hyderabad. It is
relevant to mention that the Tribunal has only granted 15% of
disability with a finding that if disability of lower half of the body
was 100%, it is equivalent to 50% in respect of entire body and as
certificate was issued by PW-2 certifying 30% of disability,
considered the disability only to 15%, for which, no specific reason
was assigned for arriving to such a conclusion. Therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that the disability stated by PW-2
has to be considered in toto i.e., 30%.
12. Admittedly, the documentary evidence on record as well as
the oral evidence of PW-2 discloses that the appellant has
undergone treatment in Government hospital, Adilabad and later at
Osmania General hospital and thereafter, at NIMS hospital, which
are corroborated by Ex.A-4 to Ex.A-14, Ex.A-17, Ex.A-18 and
Ex.A-21 to Ex.A-25
13. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another1,
the claimant is entitled for future prospects of 40%. If 40% is
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
added to the income of the claimant, it would come to Rs.3,500/-
(Rs.2,500 + Rs.1,000). The age of the claimant as on the date of
accident was 25 years, as per Exs.A-1 and A-2 i.e. FIR and the
charge sheet respectively. As per the above judgment in Sarla
Verma's case (1 supra), the appropriate multiplier would be '18'
for the age group of 15 to 25 years. Therefore, the annual income
of the claimant would come to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3,500 X 12). Ex.A-
5 is the disability certificate issued by PW-2, which reveals that the
claimant sustained 30% of disability. Hence, the claimant is
entitled for an amount of Rs.2,26,800/- (Rs.42,000 X 18 X 30/100).
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
1. Loss of earnings including Rs.2,26,800/-
disability
2. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.10,000/-
4. Medical expenses awarded by the Rs.71,666/-
Tribunal basing on documentary
evidence.
5. Extra-nourishment Rs.10,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,53,466 /-
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1681 of 2011
15. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,69,266/-
to Rs.3,53,466/-, 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 jointly and severally within two months from the date
of receipt of a copy of this order and the claimants are entitled for
the said amount. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount of compensation, as the accident occurred in the year 2009.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 09.12.2022
ajr
