Mohd. Aleem, vs A. Ranjeet Reddy,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7073 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.1446 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the XVII Additional Chief Judge-cum-III Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in O.P. No. 1747 of 2005 dated

18.09.2007, the present appeal is filed by the petitioner/claimant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. According to the petitioner, on 29.05.2005 at about 07:00 A.M.,

he loaded chicken in his auto bearing No. AP 12 UT 5092 from

Laxmareddy Poultry Farm at Kandukur and when he reached near by

Tukkuguda, one DCM lorry bearing No. AP 09 V 4866 came from

Hyderabad in rash and negligent manner with high speed and by

overtaking Hero Honda dashed against his auto trolley, as a result, he

sustained facture on his right hand and injuries all over the body.

Thus the petitioner is claiming compensation against the respondent

Nos.1 and 2, who are owner and insurer of the DCM lorry jointly and

severally.

4. Respondent No. 1 was set exparte.

5. Respondent No.2 filed counter disputing the manner in which the

accident occurred, age, avocation, income and health condition of the

petitioner/claimant. It is further contended that the respondents are

not liable to pay compensation.

6. In view of the above pleadings, the Tribunal raised the

following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 29-05-2005 due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM bearing No. AP-09-V-4866?

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

3) To what relief?

7. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1

and 2 were examined and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of

respondent No.2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 to B2 is marked.

8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.32,700/- towards

compensation to the appellant-claimant along with proportionate

costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

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

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted

that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.W.1 and 2

coupled with Exs.A1 to A9, established the fact that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the

DCM lorry and the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due

to the injuries caused in the accident, the Tribunal awarded very

meager amount under various heads.

11. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of second

respondent-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award

of the Tribunal contending that considering the manner of accident

and the nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner, the learned

Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the same needs no

interference by this Court.

12. With regard to the manner of accident, after evaluating the

evidence of PW-1 coupled with documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal rightly held that accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of DCM lorry.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

petitioner, his right hand was fractured apart from grievous injuries

over his both knees and he is not able to do any work due to the

injuries caused to him. In support of his contention, he examined the

Doctor who treated him as PW-2. PW-2 deposed that he gave

treatment to PW-1 and he was having wound infections and he took

treatment as out-patient for about nine months and issued Ex.A7

disability certificate alleging that PW-1 sustained 20% partial and

permanent disability. He is facing difficulty in lifting weights,

stiffness of right wrist and painful wrist movements. Further Ex.A3

certified copy of Medical Legal case record issued by Osmania

General Hospital shows that PW-1 was admitted in Osmania General

Hospital on 29.5.2005 and Ex.A4 discharge card shows that he was

discharged on 7.10.2005. Therefore, it is clear that PW-1 had taken

treatment in Osmania General Hospital as in-patient for more than

four months. Ex.A6 is the bunch of medical bills for Rs.5,780/-.

14. Coming to the disability sustained by the petitioner, the

evidence of PW.2 clearly established that he sustained 20% partial and

permanent disability, which appears to be excessive. Therefore,

considering the evidence of PW-2 and the nature of injury sustained

by PW-1, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed at 10%.

According to the petitioner, he was a driver and the accident occurred

during the year 2005 and as there was no income proof, the income of

the petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,000/- per month. Further, in light

of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimant is also

entitled to the future prospects and since the petitioner was aged about

25 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is added towards

future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.5,600/- (4,000 + 1,600 =

5,600/-). As the claimant was aged about 25 years at the time of

2017 ACJ 2700

accident, the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the

Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would

be "18". Thus, the future loss of income due to 10% disability comes

to Rs. 5,600 x 12 x 18 x 10/100 = Rs.1,20,960/-, which the

petitioner/claimant is entitled.

15. Further, it is clearly established that PW-1 had sustained one

grievous injury and two simple injuries. Considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,700/-

towards medical expenses, which is just and reasonable. However,

the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards the injuries sustained by

the petitioner is very less and as such, an amount of Rs.20,000/- for

one grievous injury and Rs.10,000/- for another two simple injuries is

awarded. Further an amount of Rs.15,000/- is awarded by the

Tribunal towards pain and sufferance, which is very less and the same

is enhanced to Rs. 20,000/-. The petitioner is also entitled for

Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, attendant and transport

charges. In total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.1,91,660/-, which can

be rounded off to Rs.1,92,000/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.32,700/- to

Rs.1,92,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a.

from the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by

respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The amount shall be

deposited within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. The petitioner shall pay the deficit court fee and on

such deposit of deficit court fee only, the claimant is at liberty to

withdraw the same without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J

28.12.2022 pgp