T.Hanumanth Rao vs The Ap State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 494 Tel

                HONOURABLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI

         M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1265 of 2007 and 3747 of 2008

COMMON JUDGMENT:


      These two appeals are being disposed of by this common

judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the claimant,

seeking enhancement of the compensation and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747

of 2008 filed by the R.T.C., are directed against the very same

judgment and decree, dated 02.03.2007, passed in O.P.No.871 of

2004 on the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-before the

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad

(for short "the Tribunal").


      For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.


      The facts, in issue, are as under:


      The claimant filed a petition under Sections 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

09.12.2003. It is stated that on the said date, the claimant and his

friends Shankerlal, S.Prem Kumar, went to Abids to meet their

friend and while they were returning from Abids to Karwan on Hero

Honda bearing No.AP 13 E 7368, and were passing Vijayanagar

Colony near A1 Saba Hotel at about 6.30 P.M., the claimant has

noticed R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP 11 Z 2732 standing at the bus

stop and the claimant on his way riding motorbike and all of a

sudden, the driver of the bus moved the bus in the same direction
                                  2
                                                            GSD, J
                                     Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008


with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the

motorcycle of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant fell

down on the road and the right side front wheel of the bus ran over

on the left hand shoulder of the claimant. Immediately after the

accident, the claimant was shifted to Mahaveer Hospital and from

there to NIMS Hospital, Panjagutta, where an operation was

conducted and his left hand was amputated upto the shoulder.

The claimant spent Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. Since

the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the

driver of the R.T.C. bus and the respondents, who are the owner

and custodian of the R.T.C. bus, the claim petition came to be

filed making both of them jointly and severally liable to pay

compensation.

Both the respondents filed written statement denying the

allegations and contended that the claimant/injured has to prove

that he sustained injuries in the accident. It is also stated that

there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and

the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant,

as such, the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. It is

further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive,

speculative and unreasonable and prayed to dismiss the claim

petition.

GSD, J Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008

During trial, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On behalf of the

respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced.

After analyzing the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the driver of the R.T.C. bus and

awarded total compensation of Rs.9,70,800/- under various heads,

with interest @ 7.5% per annum. Challenging the same, the

present Appeals came to be filed by the claimant and the R.T.C.

Heard both sides and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the claimant would submit that though

the claimant is aged about 22 years, and he was prosecuting

degree 3rd year, the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the

claimant at Rs.3,000/-. He submits that in view of the judgment

of the Apex Court in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India

Assurance Company Limited and another1 the Tribunal ought to

have taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month.

It is further submitted that since the claimant was aged about 22

years, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier '18'

instead of '17'. It is also submitted that in view of the settled

position of law, the claimant is also entitled an amount of

Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and loss of marriage

prospects.

(2010) 10 SCC 254

GSD, J Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008

The only contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the R.T.C. is that the disability certificate produced

by the claimant was not issued by the Medical Board and as such

the Tribunal ought not to have considered the disability sustained

by claimant.

In Arvind Kumar Mishra (1 supra) the Apex Court

considered the plea for enhancement of compensation made by the

appellant, who was a student of final year of engineering and

suffered 70% disablement in a motor accident. After noticing the

factual matrix of the case, the Court observed as under:-

"We do not intend to review in detail state of authorities in relation to assessment of all damages for personal injury. Suffice it to say that the basis of assessment of all damages for personal injury is compensation. The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was insofar as money can. Perfect compensation is hardly possible but one has to keep in mind that the victim has done no wrong; he has suffered at the hands of the wrongdoer and the court must take care to give him full and fair compensation for that he had suffered."

In the instant case also the claimant was a student studying

degree final year and had sustained 90% disability, which was

supported by the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A12-disability

certificate issued by NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. The contention of

the learned Standing Counsel for the R.T.C. that the Tribunal

GSD, J Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008

ought not to have taken into consideration Ex.A12-disability

certificate as the same was not issued by the Medical Board, has no

force since the NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad, is a Government

Hospital and it is competent to issue Ex.A12. In Latha Wadhwa

vs. State of Bihar2 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof

of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum

at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non-earning member. In the

instant case, the claimant, who was a victim of accident, was a

student of degree final year and he sustained 90% permanent

disability. Therefore, in order to calculate the loss of future

earnings of the claimant, this Court is inclined to take the income

of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per

month as taken by the Tribunal. A perusal of the material

available on record would show that the claimant was aged about

22 years and the appropriate multiplier is '18' in view of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation and another3, but the Tribunal has applied the

multiplier as '17'. Even taking the disability at 90% as assessed by

the Tribunal, applying multiplier '18' the loss of future earnings on

account of disability would be Rs.48,000/- x 90/100 x 18 =

Rs.7,77,600/-. Further, after considering all the aspects the

Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain

and suffering; Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life;

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards

(2001) 8 SCC 197

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GSD, J Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008

transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.2,00,000/- towards

future expenses for purchase of artificial limb, which needs no

interference. Apart from that since the claimant was aged about

22 years as on the date of accident and has suffered amputation of

left hand upto the shoulder, his marriage prospects are also grim.

But, the Tribunal has neither appreciated this aspect nor awarded

any compensation under this head. Therefore, having regard to the

facts and circumstances of the case and nature of injuries

sustained and also amputation, this Court inclined to award a sum

of Rs.50,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects. In the facts

and circumstances of the case, this Court feels that the claimant is

entitled to the following amounts under various heads.

Sl.No. Name of the Head                  Awarded      by Awarded     by
                                         the Tribunal    this Court
                                         Rs.        Ps. Rs.         Ps.

1.     Pain and suffering                   1,00,000.00     1,00,000.00
2.     Loss of future earnings              5,50,800.00     7,77,600.00
3.     Loss of amenities in life            1,00,000.00     1,00,000.00
4.     Medical expenses                       10,000.00       10,000.00
5.     Transportation and extra               10,000.00       10,000.00
       nourishment
6.     Fixation of artificial limb          2,00,000.00     2,00,000.00
       and future expenses for
       said artificial limb
7.     Loss      of       marriage                   --       50,000.00
       prospects
       Total:                               9,70,800.00    12,47,600.00

Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.No.1265 of 2007 filed by the

claimant is hereby allowed in part by enhancing the compensation

from Rs.9,70,800.00 to Rs.12,47,600.00 and M.A.C.M.A.No.3747 of

GSD, J Macma_1265_2007 and 3747_2008

2008 filed by the R.T.C. is dismissed. The enhanced amount will

carry an interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award

passed by the Tribunal i.e., from 02.03.2007 till the date of

realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

these appeals shall stand closed.

________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI 08.02.2022 gkv