Kudikala Chiranjeevi vs Abdul Rahman
2022 Latest Caselaw 7074 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.2747 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Warangal, in M.V.O.P.

No.985 of 2011, dated 13.03.2013, the present appeal is filed by the

claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner is a Graduate, aged

26 years, appeared I-CET entrance examination and got good rank.

He is working as an Operator in offset Printing Press and Binding

Works under the name and style of Rainbow Offset Printers,

Hanamkonda with a monthly salary of Rs.8,500/-. On 15.06.2010 he

was traveling in the auto bearing No. AP 09 W 8604 and when he

reached in front of kakatiya Medical College, Warangal at 6-10 a.m.,

the driver of the auto drove it in rash and negligent manner with high

speed and lost control over the auto and dashed against the road

divider, as a result of which, the auto overturned on the road. Due to

which, the petitioner sustained injuries to head, brain, fracture to both

bones of right leg, injury of lower lip and another passenger in that

auto died. Immediately he was shifted to MGM Hospital, Warangal,

where he was treated as inpatient from 15.6.2010, operation was

done to his head and right leg on 18.8.2010 and inserted steel plates

to the leg and he was discharged on 30.8.2010 with an advise to

consult Ophthalmologist as he lost his vision on both eyes. He

incurred Rs.40,000/- towards his medical expenses and extra

nourishment. The Doctor of Regional Eye Hospital opined that the

petitioner suffered Optic Atrophy of both eyes and he sustained

permanent disability. Due to surgery and insertion of steel rods and

plates, he is unable to walk without support of stick and due to lip

injury, his face was disfigured and unable to continue his profession.

Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- under various

heads against the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

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 and the treatment taken by him. It is

further contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is

highly excessive and prays to dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the accident dt. 15.6.2010 at about 6-10 a.m. in front of K.M.C., Warangal, was caused by rash and negligent driving by the driver of auto bearing No. AP 09 W 8604 and in such accident, petitioner K.Chiranjeevi sustained injuries?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- and if not for how much amount the petitioner is entitled for compensation and against which respondent?

3. To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 to 7 were examined and

Exs.A1 to A15 and X1 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On

behalf of respondent No.3, no witnesses were examined and Ex.B1

got marked.

6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.11,40,000/-

towards compensation to the appellant-claimant along with costs and

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

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

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

learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

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

that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and

Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.X1, established the fact that the accident

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

auto and the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the

injuries received by him in the accident, the Tribunal awarded very

meager amount under various heads.

9. 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 adequate compensation and the same

needs no interference by this Court.

10. 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 the accident occurred due to the

rash and negligent driving of the driver of auto.

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

petitioner, he sustained injuries to his head, brain, fracture to both

bones of right leg, injury of lower lip. Immediately he was shifted to

MGM Hospital, Warangal, where he was treated as inpatient from

15.6.2010, operation was done to his head and right leg on 18.8.2010

and inserted steel plates to the leg and was discharged on 30.8.2010

with an advise to consult Ophthalmologist as he lost his vision on

both eyes. He incurred Rs.40,000/- towards his medical expenses. In

support of his contention, PWs.2 and 3, who are the Orthopedic

Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon respectively were examined. PW-2

deposed that on 15.6.2010 he examined PW-1 in MGM Hospital and

found 1) head injury, 2) fracture of both bones of right leg and

operation was done for fracture of right leg and intra modularly rods

and scraps were fixed and he was discharged from the hospital on

30.8.2010 with an advise to take follow up treatment. PW-3 Neuro

Surgeon deposed that CT Scan of head and brain of the petitioner

showed right parieattin subdural hemorrhage and the patient was

treated conservatively and the MRI of brain on 20.7.2010 showed

hydrocephalus for which surgery was done on 28.7.2010 and the

injury was in grievous injury. Further he deposed that the patient

complained of burning vision and unable to move eyeballs and as

such, he was referred to Ophthalmologist, who opined that he is

suffering from Optic Atrophy with third cranial nerve parisis and that

the patient was treated as high risk case. He also deposed that

burning of vision due to Optic nerve atrophy may be due to head

injury. Thus, from the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, it is clearly

established that the petitioner sustained two grievous injuries and one

simple injury, for which the Tribunal awarded an amount of

Rs.25,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- for simple injury.

12. Coming to the disability sustained by the petitioner, PW-4

Assistant Professor in Regional Eye Hospital/MGM Hospital

deposed that the patient was referred from Neuro Surgeon

Department and that she opined that both eyes having optic atrophy

and his pupils were middilated and were not reacting to light and that

the right eye vision was perception of light present. Left eye vision

was counting fingers from four meters not improving with glasses.

PW-5 is the Professor, Regional Eye Hospital and Member in the

Regional Medical Board, Warangal. He issued Ex.A9 disability

certificate on 16.1.2012 stating that PW-1's left eye vision was

counting finger one meter, anterior segment - pupils dilated and

sluggist - fundas examination is optic atrophy 100% visual disability.

He admitted that the patient can identify items at a distance of one

meter. According to the petitioner, he is a Graduate and working as

an Operator in offset Printing Press and Binding Works under the

name and style of Rainbow Offset Printers, Hanamkonda with a

monthly salary of Rs.8,500/-. PW-7 employer of PW-1 deposed that

the petitioner was working in his printers for four years and he was

paying salary of Rs.8,500/- per month and he lost his job due to the

accident and he was a skilled worker. Ex.A15 salary certificate was

issued by him. However, the Tribunal while calculating the loss of

earning capacity, the income of the petitioner has taken at Rs.4,000/-

per month alleging that the employer of PW-1 not maintaining the

wages register, attendance register and also advance register, which

appears to be too meager. However, considering the evidence of

PW-7, this Court is inclined to take the income of petitioner at

Rs.7,000/- per month. As per the records, the claimant was aged

about 26 years at the time of accident. Then the appropriate

multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma

v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 would be "17". Thus, the future

loss of income due to 100% disability comes to Rs.7,000 x 12 x 17 =

Rs.14,28,000/-, which the petitioner/claimant is entitled. Further the

Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards attendant

charges for the entire life of the petitioner and Rs.1,00,000/- towards

the loss of marriage prospects of the petitioner, which are not

disturbed.

13. Further, considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded for fracture of right

leg, Rs.50,000/- is awarded for the head injury and Rs.10,000/- is

awarded for the simple injury. Further the Tribunal also awarded an

amount of Rs.75,000/- towards pain and sufferance, which is not

disturbed. Further an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards

transport charges and extra nourishment. In total, the claimant is

entitled to Rs.18,13,000/-.

14. With regard to the liability, it is contended by the learned

counsel for the petitioner that though respondent No.1 is the insured

as per Ex.B1, subsequently the vehicle was changed to respondent

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

No.2 who did not take steps of getting his name in the insurance

documents. Ex.B1 shows that the offending vehicle was insured with

respondent No.3-Insurance Company covering the date of accident.

Thus, the Tribunal rightly held that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are

jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.11,40,000/-

to Rs.18,13,000/-. 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 to 3 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 claimant is directed to pay the deficit court

fee and on such deposit of 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