Telangana High Court
W Miya, Nizamabad Dist vs The Depot Manager, Nizamabad, ... on 6 June, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.NO.705 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the injured in the accident which occurred
on 09.09.2011 while he was driving the van bearing No.AP-25-U-9612
from Nizamabad to Armoor and the RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-5397
came in the opposite direction being driven in a rash and negligent
manner. The appellant has claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for
the injuries, whereas the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,75,000/-.
Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present Appeal is filed.
2. The injured had claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/-
per month as salary for driving the vehicle and had sustained fracture of
both bones of right leg, right clavicle, right hand and grievous injuries to
right cheek, left leg, left hand, head and other parts of the body in the
accident. It is submitted that the Tribunal has taken only Rs.5,000/- as
monthly income of the claimant and has awarded only Rs.15,000/- as
compensation towards of loss of earnings. It is submitted that the
Tribunal has also awarded only Rs.8,000/- compensation under the head
of hospital and medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant
MACMA No.705 of 2016
expenses, transport, etc., which is very low. He therefore prayed that the
compensation may be computed by taking the monthly income of the
injured at Rs.10,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Azar Sravan Kumar,
submitted that Ex.A.4 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board, District Head Quarters Hospital, Nizamabad which reveals the
disability of the claimant at 45%, but the Tribunal has not considered the
same and also has not considered that the claimant was only 22 years of
age at the time of the accident and because of the fractures to legs and
hands and also injuries to the face, the claimant has also lost prospects
of suitable marriage and was eligible for compensation for the same.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy,
has also been heard who submitted that the compensation awarded is
just and reasonable as the injuries were simple and injured was also
discharged from the hospital within a period of 10 days.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court finds that the accident has taken place in the year 2011 and
though the claimant claims Rs.10,000/- as his monthly income,
Rs.8,000/- would be reasonable monthly income of the claimant at the
MACMA No.705 of 2016
relevant point of time as he is a skilled worker being a driver of four
wheeler.
6. As regards the medical expenses, having regard to the fact that
there were fractures of both bones of right leg, right clavicle and right
hand and injuries to right cheek, left leg, left hand, head and other parts
of the body, a compensation of Rs.8,000/- awarded under the head
hospital expenses, etc., is too meagre. A compensation of Rs.50,000/- is
awarded for both pain and suffering as well as medical expenses,
transport, extra nourishment, attendant expenses, etc.
7. Since the monthly income of the claimant is taken at Rs.8,000/-,
the compensation for loss of earnings up to his recovery for a period of
six months is taken at Rs.48,000/-.
8. The Tribunal has already awarded loss of future earnings at
Rs.1,02,000/- assessing the earning capacity at 10% by applying the
multiplier 17 and by taking the age as 26 years as per the disability
certificate of the claimant. As there is no evidence with regard to the age
of the claimant, his age as recorded in the disability certificate can be
taken. The relevant multiplier applicable with reference to that age is 17
as per Sarla Verma (Smt) and others Vs. Delhi Transport
MACMA No.705 of 2016
Corporation and another1. Regarding loss of earning capacity, the
Tribunal quantified the same at 10% as against the disability recorded at
45%. The said quantification is done in the lines explained by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
and another2. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the method
of calculation under this head except taking the monthly income of the
injured at Rs.8,000/- as against Rs.5,000/- assessed by the Tribunal.
While calculating accordingly [96,000 (earnings per annum) x 10% (%
of loss of earning capacity) x 17 (multiplier)], the appellant is entitled to
Rs.1,63,200/- towards loss of future earnings due to disability.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs.
Ajay Kumar and another (2 supra) for the proposition that where there
is a disability of 45%, there is no need to deduct one-third of the income
of the injured towards his personal and living expenses. However, it is
seen that the Tribunal has not deducted any amount towards personal
and living expenses of the injured and therefore the said judgment is not
applicable to the present case on this aspect.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
(2011) 1 SCC 343
MACMA No.705 of 2016
10. In the light of the abovementioned discussion, the appellant is
entitled to the following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Income Rs.8,000 per month
(3) For pain and suffering and
medical expenses, transport,
extra nourishment, attendant
expenses Rs.50,000
(4) Loss of earnings up to
the period of recovery Rs.48,000
(5) Loss of future earnings
due to disability Rs.1,63,200
Total compensation awarded Rs.2,61,200 along with interest
@ 6% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till
payment.
11. In the result, the award dt.27.11.2015 in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2012
on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional
District Judge, Nizamabad is modified by awarding a total compensation
of Rs.2,61,200/- (Rupees two lakhs sixty one thousand and two hundred
only) with costs and interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of
the claim petition till the date of realisation against both the respondents.
MACMA No.705 of 2016
The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount
awarded within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
same.
12. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed without
costs.
13. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 06.06.2022
Svv
