Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Kummari Ramulu And 7 Others on 17 February, 2022
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 2336 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant-The New India
Assurance Company Limited, assailing the order and decree,
dated 18.07.2007, passed in O.P. No. 350 of 2006 on the file of
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.
During the pendency of the present appeal, the claimant-
respondent No. 1 herein died and therefore, his legal
representatives were brought on record as respondent Nos. 3 to 8
in the appeal. The claimant, respondent No. 1 herein, filed the
O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.6.00 lakhs for the injuries
sustained by him in the accident that occurred on 03.03.2006.
According to the claimant, on 03.03.2006 at about 10:15 p.m.
while he was returning to his house after attending his duty, by
walk, and when he reached infront of PSML Company Guest
House on National Highway No. 9, the crime vehicle i.e., Tanker
lorry bearing registration No. MH-04/CG-908, owned by
respondent No. 1, insured with the appellant herein, being driven
by its driver, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed,
dashed against him, as a result of which, he sustained crush
injuries on both legs, grievous injury on hand and multiple
injuries all over body. According to him, initially he was shifted
to Community Health Centre, Sadasivpet and later admitted in
the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad as inpatient where, his both
legs were amputated. He incurred Rs.8.00 lakhs towards
treatment and medicines. At the time of accident, he was 45
years and was working in PSML, Sadasivpet and earning
Rs.5,000/- per month. Therefore, he made a claim for Rs.6.00
lakhs towards compensation. Considering the claim and the
written statement filed by the Insurance Company, the learned
Tribunal has allowed the O.P. in part and awarded total
compensation of Rs.4,05,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum
holding the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company
jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.
Now, the grounds raised by the learned Standing Counsel
for the appellant are that the learned Tribunal erred in taking the
loss of income of claimant as 100%; that in the absence of any
proof produced by the claimant showing his monthly income, the
Tribunal ought to have taken the notional income at Rs.15,000/-
per annum. It is contended that the accident had occurred due
to the contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and
therefore, he is not entitled for the compensation.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No. 1-claimant, contended that the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable and
needs no interference by this Court.
Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and
the learned counsel for the claimant-respondent No. 1 herein.
Perused the material available on record.
As seen from the record, due to the accident, both the legs
of the claimant were amputated and he was unable to work with
his left hand due to the injury sustained in the accident. Nothing
contra was elicited in his cross-examination. The evidence of
P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A.3, injury certificate, A.5, discharge
record issued by Gandhi Hospital, and Ex.A8, Physical
Handicapped certificate clearly show that both the legs of
claimant were amputated and he sustained 80% disability.
Although the claimant did not produce any documentary
evidence to support his claim that he was working as part-time
Scavenger and earning Rs.2,080/- each from both the Units of
M/s. Priyadarshini Spinning Mills Limited apart from earning
Rs.1,000/- from the colony inhabitants, the learned Tribunal has
rightly fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month.
As the claimant had suffered 80% disability, the amount of
Rs.3,60,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards future loss of
earnings, cannot be said to be higher side. In fact, the amounts
of Rs.8,000/- towards simple injuries; Rs.2,000/- towards
medical bills; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; and
Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment are meagre and
therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal
needs no interference.
Coming to the contention of the learned Standing Counsel
for the appellant that there was contributory negligence on the
part of the claimant in occurring the accident, the learned
Tribunal, at para No. 6, while deciding the issue No. 1, had
observed as under:-
"6....Police registered a case against the said driver. In his
cross-examination, except suggesting that the accident occurred
due to his negligence and without any negligence of driver of said
lorry, which he denied, the second respondent did not adduce any
evidence prove their plea that the accident occurred due to fault of
petitioner. On the other hand, to corroborate his above version, the
petitioner filed Exs.A1, A2 and A4. Ex.A1 is the FIR in Crime No.
49/2006 of P.S. Sadasivpet, basing on which, the Sub-Inspector of
Police, Sadasivpet investigated into the case, conducted Ex.A4
Scene of Offence Panchanama and filed Ex.A2 Charge Sheet for
the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC against the driver of
lorry MH-04/CG-908...."
Thus, although P.W.1 specifically attributed negligent
driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, the
appellant-Insurance Company did not choose to rebut the said
evidence in his cross-examination. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to disturb the cogent finding of the learned Tribunal
even with regard to the manner of the accident and the
negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
Hence, the M.A.C.M.A. fails and the same is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
17.02.2022
tsr
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2336 of 2007
DATE: 17-02-2022
