Telangana High Court

C.V.S.R. Prasad vs Mrs. Arun Kour Gurmith Singh And ... on 9 June, 2022

Bench: N.Tukaramji

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


                M.A.C.M.A.No.1275 of 2007


JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied by the quantum of compensation awarded, the

claim petitioner / injured preferred this appeal against the

decree and award dt.09.03.2007 in MVOP.No.2966 of 2003 on

the file of the XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad.

2. The claim petition was filed by the appellant herein

seeking compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries suffered by

him in a motor accident dated 02.07.2003. The Tribunal on

considering the material and evidence on record awarded

compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum

with proportionate costs by holding the respondents jointly and

severally liable.

3. The brief facts are that, on 02.07.2003 while the appellant

/ petitioner was proceeding on motorcycle bearing No.AP-09-R-

5099 at Vivekananda Nagar cross roads traffic signal, when he NTR,J 2 Macma_1275_2007

stopped the motorcycle on the signal, one tanker lorry bearing

registration No. DN-09-9622 driven by its driver in rash and

negligent manner at high speed came from behind and struck

the motorcycle which resulted in grievous injuries to his person

and damage to the vehicle. The injured was shifted to the

hospital. After the treatment, claiming medical expenditure,

damages and other heads filed petition claiming compensation.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contested that the

Tribunal erred in fixing the monthly salary at Rs.7,000/-. The

Tribunal ought to have observed that the appellant had suffered

physical disability and the medical board has also issued

disability certificate at 40%. In spite of evidence of the PW-2

and medical bills, the tribunal had granted only Rs.15,000/- for

medical expenditure. Further the tribunal should have

considered the loss of earnings during the period of treatment,

extra nourishment and compensation for loss of amenities of

life. This apart, though the damage to the motorcycle was

placed under estimation/Ex.A-8, no amount was granted. Thus

prayed for reassessment of the compensation.

                                                                   NTR,J
                                  3                     Macma_1275_2007

5/ The learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that the

material placed by the appellant/petitioner was properly

appreciated and just compensation was awarded. The appellant

without any tenable material, seeking enhancement and there

is no merit in the appeal.

6. In these rival claims, the points arise for determination is:

Whether the awarded compensation amount to the appellant / petitioner is just and proper?".

7. The appellant/petitioner as PW-1 deposed that by the date

of accident he was 38 years old and running computer training

institute for assembling of computers and data process, thereby

used to earn Rs.20,000/- per month and in the accident he

received fractures to his right knee, lacerations and abrasions

on the left leg, both hands and head.

8. No wound certificate was filed. However, in the discharge

summary/Ex.A-3 crush injury, right foot with fractures of

dorsum, meta dorsum, loss of soft tissue over entire dorsum

with history of run over by a lorry on 02.07.2003 is recorded.

None the less, the injuries suffered by the appellant in the NTR,J 4 Macma_1275_2007

accident was not disputed by the respondents. As such the

petitioner suffering injuries in the accident as mentioned in the

discharge summary/Ex.A-3 can be concluded.

9. The appellant as PW-1 further stated that he had

undergone two surgeries in Challa Nursing Home and

undergone plastic surgery to his right foot. However, due to

swelling, he is not in a position to walk, squat and during the

treatment some soft tissue was removed from the right ribs for

reconstructing the mass on right foot and he incurred more

than Rs.1,70,000/- towards medical expenditure, but could file

only bills for Rs.1,15,241/-.

10. The Accounts Assistant of Hospital as PW-2 deposed that

receipt No.20159 for Rs.44,577/- was issued and that amount

was paid. To note in the cross examination of PWs.1 and 2 the

respondent/insurer did not challenge the genuinity of the bills

or pointed any circumstance to disbelieve. Therefore in the

light of positive evidence, granting the amount as in the

medical bills/Ex.A-6 at Rs.1,15,241/- by rounding of

Rs.1,15,300/- is found proper.

                                                                   NTR,J
                                   5                    Macma_1275_2007

11. The appellant as PW-1 claimed that due to the injuries and

treatment, he kept closed his business, thereby lost income.

Further due to the disability, he sustained loss of earning

capacity. To prove the occupation and income, the appellant

filed Ex.A-15/sales tax assessment proceedings. Further the

appellant also relied on rental agreements/Ex.A-10 M/s.

Microway Information Technology for a period of 11 months @

Rs.4,000/- per month towards rent for flat.

12. The sales tax assessment/Ex.A-15 is for the year 1994-95

with net turn over at Rs.88,536/- per annum and for the year

1995-96 at Rs.1,90,900/-. Even if the turn over amounts are

considered as it is, there would be deduction in the net income

for other expenditure in running the firm. The tribunal had

taken Rs.7,000/- as monthly earnings. However, having regard

to the pleaded business and possible expenditure, the income

taken by the Tribunal is found on lower side as such raising the

monthly income to Rs.12,000/- is found reasonable.

13. The appellant/petitioner except claiming Rs.30,000/- as

loss of earnings during the period of treatment, nowhere at NTR,J 6 Macma_1275_2007

least pleaded the exact period of treatment. However,

considering the period of inpatient and medical treatment at

Challa Nursing Home reflected reflected in the Ex.A-6, loss of

earnings for one month can be believed, accordingly,

Rs.12,000/- is granted towards loss of income during the period

of treatment.

14. The appellant/petitioner had claimed loss of future income

due to disability. It is settled proposition that the loss of future

income shall be determined basing on the consequence of

disability on the income earning capacity. The contention of the

appellant is that the doctor/PW-3 and the medical board has

issued certificate that the petitioner has suffered 40% disability

and the same shall be considered as basis for future loss of

earnings.

15. Be that as it may, the appellant/petitioner nowhere

explained the effect of disability on his avocation or income

earning capacity. Considering the fact that the injury is on foot

and the occupation of the appellant/petitioner and taking note

of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay NTR,J 7 Macma_1275_2007

Kumar and another, the loss of earnings due to disability cannot

be envisaged. Hence, no amount can be granted under this

head.

16. Anywise, the injury on foot would certainly have affected

the mobility which in turn, to certain extent may have affect on

the enjoyment of life and amenities. Thus, Rs.20,000/- is

awarded towards loss of amenities.

17. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the

appellant/petitioner, granting Rs.3,000/- towards

transportation, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, as claimed is found

proper.

18. In addition, taking into account the possibility that the

family members would have assisted by making out some time

from their avocations, Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards 'attendant

charges'.

19. With regard to the damages to motorcycle, the recitals in

F.I.R./Ex.A-1 and the charge sheet/Ex.A-2 are showing that the

accident occurred as the lorry struck the motorcycle from NTR,J 8 Macma_1275_2007

behind is specifyig that the motorcycle would have undeniably

damages. However, the evidence placed i.e. Ex.A-8 is an

estimation to carry out the repairs. This material is not

explaining what are the actual damage caused to the

motorcycle in the accident and the repairs to be carried out.

For that reason, considering the fact of accident, granting

Rs.5,000/- towards damages to the motorcycle is found proper.

20. Thus, in all, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to the

compensation as under:

            DESCRIPTION                      AMOUNT (Rs.)
      Medical Expenditure                      1,15,300.00
      Pain and suffering                         25,000.00
      Loss of earningsfor a month                12,000.00
      Loss of amenities                          20,000.00
      Extra nourishment                           5,000.00
      Transportation charges                      3,000.00
      Attendant charges                           5,000.00
      Damage to motorcycle                        5,000.00
             TOTAL              ::            1,90,300.00

21. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part, in the following

terms, viz.,

(i) the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are jointly and severally

liable to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,90,300/- (Rupees NTR,J 9 Macma_1275_2007

one lakh ninety thousand and three hundred only) with interest

@ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till date of realization

with proportionate interest and costs;

(ii) the respondents are directed to deposit the awarded

amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment; and

(iii) on such deposit, the appellant / petitioner is

permitted to withdraw the entire amount.