Macharla Naresh vs Gandra Arun Kumar Reddy And 2 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6755 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.3486 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the XIII Additional District Judge, L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District

in M.V.O.P. No.467 of 2015, dated 30.10.2018, the present appeal

is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation

granted by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to the

petitioner, on 26.05.2015 at about 11-15 hours while the

petitioner was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. TS 02 EC

7020, one lorry bearing No. AP 36 TB 5588 being driven by its

driver came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed his motorcycle while dashing a car bearing No. TS 03 DTR

8179 which was proceeding ahead of his motorcycle, due to which

he sustained grievous injuries and inmates of the car died on the

spot. Immediately he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

wherein he took treatment as inpatient and spent more than

Rs.50,000/- towards treatment. According to the petitioner, he

was aged about 20 years, ITI student and also doing as private

tutor, and used to get an amount of Rs.9,000/- per month. Due

to the accident, his right leg was amputated and he could not

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

attend his ITI examination and lost his academic year and

suffered lot of mental agony apart from other difficulties. Thus, he

is claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; Respondent

No.3 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and income of

the claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant

and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

1) Whether the accident is occurred on 26.05.2014 at about 11.15 hours near Mallampally Cross Roads, Bhoopalapally causing injuries sustained by the petitioner in a road accident, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry bearing No. AP.36.TB.5588 being driven by respondent No.2?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from which respondents?

3) To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner,

PWs.1 and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8. On

behalf of the respondent No.3-Insurance Company, no witnesses

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

were examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as

Ex.B1.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,75,000/-

towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest

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

realization to the appellant-claimant against the respondent Nos.1

and 2, jointly and severally. Though the Tribunal held that the

respondent Nos.1 and 2, as owner and insurer of the lorry, but in

fact, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are owner and driver and

respondent No.3 is the insurer of the lorry.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries

received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has awarded

very meager amount under various heads.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the

learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of lorry bearing No. AP.36.TB.5588. Now the only

dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum of

compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

petitioner was ITI student and a private tutor and earning

Rs.9,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has not at all considered

the income of the injured. Furthermore, it is contended that the

petitioner has sustained 70% disability due to the injuries

sustained by him in the above accident and in order to prove the

same, Ex.A6 disability certificate which was issued by the Medical

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

Board, Karimnagar District was filed. But the Tribunal has not

considered the disability certificate and further the Tribunal by

discarding the evidence of PW-2, Doctor who issued the disability

certificate and also the disability certificate, stating that the

disability certificate was not valid for medico legal cases. Ex.A4 is

the discharge summary issued by Osmania General Hospital

which shows that the petitioner has traumatic amputation of right

leg D/3, fracture m/3 shaft of right femur. Ex.A5 photographs

shows that the petitioner's right leg was amputated below knee

level. PW-2 who issued the disability certificate stated that on

23.11.2015 he examined the petitioner in their hospital and found

disability at 70% due to post traumatic amputation of right lower

limb up to below knee joint which is permanent in nature and that

he cannot walk and sit without support and facing difficulty to

attend his day to day activities. This Court has perused the entire

record and found that the petitioner has sustained severe grievous

injuries and also his leg was amputated. Considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded

Rs.60,000/- towards pain and sufferance, Rs.10,000/- towards

extra nourishment, attendant charges, Rs.5,000/- towards

transportation charges, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marriage

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

prospects and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of happiness and loss of

amenities, which are just and reasonable and as such, they are

not disturbed. However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of disability, which is very less.

Therefore, this Court is inclined to enhance the same to

Rs.4,00,000/- for the loss of earning capacity due to the disability

sustained by him. Further an amount of Rs.10,000/- is awarded

towards loss of income for two months @ Rs.5,000/- per month.

In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,85,000/-.

13. With regard to the liability, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are owner,

driver and insurer of the offending lorry and the policy was in

force as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3

are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the

petitioner.

14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by enhancing

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.4,75,000/- to Rs.6,85,000/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3486 of 2019

The amount shall be deposited within a period of one month from

the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, he is

entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing

any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 13.12.2022 pgp