Shaik Moosa S.K. Moosa vs Anjaneyulu Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 7014 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                M.A.C.M.A. No.1497 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated

20.10.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.1614 of 2012 on the file

of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident that occurred on 11.05.2012. According to the

appellant, on 11.05.2012, while he was proceeding on a

motorcycle to Kuthukuluru village and when he reached

the railway station of Kadiyam Mandal, the offending

vehicle i.e., Lorry (Tipper) bearing No.AP 37 V 6737, owned

by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2,

being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner,

came from Anaparthy side towards Rajahmundry, dashed

the motorcycle in the process of overtaking another vehicle.

As a result, the appellant fell down and sustained several

fracture injuries and his left leg was amputated above knee

level on 11.05.2012 at Government Hospital, Kadiyam. It

is further stated that prior to the accident, the appellant

was hale and healthy and was working as driver in Kaveri

Travels and earning Rs.10,000/- per month apart from

Rs.200/- per day as batta and due to amputation of his left

leg above the knee, he suffered permanent disability.

Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents,

seeking compensation.

3. After considering the claim and the counter filed by

respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both

oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly

allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of

Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 6% per annum.

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the

present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits

that the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the

same as he suffered 85% permanent disability due to

amputation of his left leg above the knee, the Tribunal

ought to have taken the functional disability at 100%

taking into consideration the profession of the deceased as

driver. It is further contended that the Tribunal ought to

have awarded interest at 7.5% per annum instead of Rs.6%

per annum. Therefore, prayed to enhance the

compensation duly taking the functional disability at

100%. It is further contended that though the claim-

petition pertains to case of injury, the Tribunal has

erroneously deducted 1/3rd amount towards personal

expenses.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on

evidence and the same needs no interference.

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

in which the accident took place has become final as the

same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of

the vehicle.

8. The short question that arises for consideration is

"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and equitable"?

9. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined

himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as

P.W.2. In support of the injuries as well as the disability

sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A5,

disability certificate, issued by the Area Hospital,

Vanasthalipuram. P.W.2, the doctor, had deposed in his

evidence that the appellant was suffering with permanent

disability at 85% as his left leg was amputated above the

knee and he issued Ex.A5-disability certificate. As seen

from Ex.A7, driving licence, the profession of the appellant

itself is driver and due to the amputation of left leg above

the knee, he cannot continue the profession of driver.

Therefore, the functional disability can be taken at 100%.

10. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another1 the

Apex Court held as under:-

MACD 2011 (SC) 33

"20. In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses."

11. As the claim-petition itself is filed seeking

compensation on account of the injuries sustained by the

appellant, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Raj

Kumar (supra), the Tribunal ought not to have deducted

1/3rd amount towards personal expenses.

12. As regard the income of the appellant, considering

Ex.A7, driving licence, since the appellant was skilled

person, the Tribunal has rightly taken his monthly income

at Rs.9,000/-. As the age of the appellant at the time of

accident was between 36-40 years, the appropriate

multiplier in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs.

Delhi Transport Corporation2, is '15'. Therefore, adopting

the said multiplier the loss of earnings on account of the

disability comes to Rs.9,000/- x 12 x 15 = Rs.16,20,000/-.

Further, the amount awarded for injuries i.e., Rs.50,000/-

and under the heads of transportation and attendance

2009 ACJ 1298

charges i.e., Rs.50,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- awarded for

purchase of artificial limb are not disturbed. Thus, in all

the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.19,20,000/- as

compensation.

13. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance

company submits that the appellant claimed only a sum of

Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of

compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the

claim made which is impermissible under law.

14. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in

Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another3 and

Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh4, the appellant is entitled

to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount

what was claimed by the claimant.

15. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is

that the claimant is entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum

on the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the

date of petition till realization, as per the decision of the

(2011) 10 SCC 756

2003 ACJ 12 (SC)

Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and

others5.

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs. 19,20,000/- .

The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization. The 2nd

respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to

withdraw the entire compensation amount. However, the

appellant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the

enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

27.12.2022 tsr

5 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.1497 of 2015

DATE: -12-2022