Mangalipasupala Mallaiah Died 3 ... vs Ashok Kumar Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7013 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7013 Tel
Judgement Date : 27 December, 2022

Telangana High Court

Mangalipasupala Mallaiah Died 3 ... vs Ashok Kumar Another on 27 December, 2022

Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.3050 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Assailing the order and decree, dated 31.05.2014

made in M.V.O.P.No.463 of 2008 on the file of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal {III Additional District Judge

(FTC)}, Nizamabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the claimants

filed the appeal, seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

shall be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that initially the 1st

petitioner (since died) filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of

Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor

vehicle accident that occurred on 08.04.2005. It is stated

that on 08.04.2005 at about 6:00 a.m., while the 1st

petitioner was standing by the side of the road, a Lorry

MGP, J Macma_3050_2014

bearing No.HR 55 4206, owned by respondent No.1 and

insured with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in

a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed him

and the front wheel of the lorry ran over him. As a result,

the left leg of the 1st petitioner was crushed. Immediately

after the accident, the 1st petitioner was shifted to Heera

Nursing Home, Nizamabad, where his left leg was

amputated above the ankle and he incurred an amount of

Rs.2.00 lakhs for his treatment. Therefore, the 1st

petitioner filed the claim-petition. During pendency of the

claim-petition, the 1st petitioner died and petitioner Nos.2

to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives,

vide order, dated 11.08.2009 in I.A.No.781 of 2009.

4. Considering the claim and counter filed by

respondent No.2 and also the oral and documentary

evidence brought on record, the tribunal allowed the O.P.

awarding a sum of Rs.30,675/- towards compensation with

interest at 7.5% per annum, to be paid by the respondent.

MGP, J Macma_3050_2014

Challenging the same, the claimants filed the present

appeal, seeking enhancement of the compensation.

5. Heard both sides and perused the material available

on record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has

submitted that the Tribunal did not consider the evidence

of P.W.4, the doctor, who treated the 1st petitioner. The

Tribunal ought to have considered the fact that the 1st

petitioner had sustained crush injury to his left leg and his

left leg was amputated above the ankle. It is further

submitted that though the appellants claimed that the 1st

petitioner was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by working

as barber, the Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim

for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability

and granted a meager compensation of Rs.30,675/-.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the Insurance Company has submitted that

the Tribunal has awarded just compensation, which needs

MGP, J Macma_3050_2014

no interference by this Court. It is further submitted that

no record is available to show that the death of the 1st

petitioner was caused as a result of the injuries sustained

in the accident.

8. Now the point that arises for consideration is

"whether the appellants, who are the legal representative of

the 1st petitioner/injured, are entitled for enhancement of

compensation?"

9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner

in which the accident took place has become final since the

same was not challenged by either of the respondents.

10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is

concerned, a perusal of the material on record would show

that P.W.4, the doctor, who treated the 1st petitioner,

deposed that the left leg of the 1st petitioner was amputated

above the ankle. As the 1st claimant died during pendency

of the claim-petition, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/-

MGP, J Macma_3050_2014

towards expenditure incurred for his treatment and

Rs.10,675/- towards medical bills.

11. In The Oriental Insurance Company Limited v.

Kahlon @ Jasmail Singh Kahlon (deceased)1, the Apex

Court in paragraph Nos.18 and 20 observed as under:-

"18. The Tribunal, on technicalities rejected his claim for salary, medical expenses and percentage of disability and granted a measly compensation of Rupees one lakh only by a cryptic order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that while the claim for personal injuries may not have survived after the death of the injured unrelated to the accident or injuries, during the pendency of the appeal, but the claims for loss of estate caused was available to and could be pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased in the appeal.

20. We see no reason to deviate from the consistent judicial view taken by more than one High Court that loss of estate would include expenditure on medicines, treatment, diet, attendant, Doctor's fee, etc. including income and future prospects which would have caused reasonable accretion to the estate but for the sudden expenditure which had to be met from and depleted the estate of the injured, subsequently deceased."