Chokkarapu Venkata Ramana, vs Jinka Prasad,
2022 Latest Caselaw 6055 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.3227 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV

Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District in M.V.O.P.

No.879 of 2015, dated 29.08.2016, the present appeal is filed by

the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by

the Tribunal.

2. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to the

petitioner, on 17-09-2013 the petitioner along with his family

members were proceeding in Tavera car bearing No. AP.24.Y.9277

from Kanyakumari to Haliya and when they reached near Zilla

Parishad High School, Brahmanapalli Village, at about 11-00

p.m., driver of Tavera vehicle drove it in rash and negligent

manner at high speed and lost control over the vehicle and hit the

stationed lorry bearing No.AP.29.TB.2523 from its back side. Due

to which, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately

he was shifted to a private hospital at Piduguralla and from there

to Life Hospital, Guntur where he was admitted as inpatient and

underwent surgery to his left hand. Thus, he is claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 were set ex parte; Respondent No.3

filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and income of the

claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

1) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against respondent Nos.1 to 3 as prayed for?

2) To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner,

PWs.1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A8 and

Exs.X1 and X2. On behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance

Company, no witnesses were examined, however, Ex.B1 got

marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,80,000/-

towards compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

the date of petition till the date of deposit to the appellant-

claimant against the respondent No.3.

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

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.3. 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 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.X1 and X2, established the

fact that the petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to

the injuries received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has

awarded very meager amount of Rs.4,80,000/- under various

heads.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the

learned Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving

of the driver of Tavera vehicle bearing No. AP.24.Y.9277. Now the

only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum

of compensation.

11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of PW-2

who is the Medical officer deposed that the petitioner was

admitted in Life Hospital, Guntur on 18-9-2013 at 2-10 A.M. with

lacerated wound on scalp deep and crush injury on left parietals

and also left hand fingers. He further deposed that patient was

referred to Ortho Surgeon and Neuro Surgeon and head injury

was managed by medical management and there was crush injury

to left ring finger, fracture of carpal bones. The patient was

discharged on 16-10-2013 and again he was admitted on

17.10.2013 for surgery to the left hand by skin grafting by plastic

surgeon and was discharged on 27-10-2013 and the above

injuries are grievous in nature. The evidence of PW-3, another

Medical Officer shows that the petitioner was admitted in his

hospital on 18-9-2013 with three fracture injuries. The petitioner

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

underwent K-wire fixation, debridement and sutured later and

was discharged on 6-10-2013. He left with stiffness of the left

hand gross oedema involving left MCB of all five fingers and IP of

all fingers and he lost wrist dorsiflexion and that the stiffness

crushing of permanent disability of 60% and lost his earning

capacity of 80%. He may not be able to carryout his actual

activities of daily living and may not be able to lift weight and

carryout heavy works. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 to 3

coupled with documentary evidence shows that the petitioner has

sustained grievous injuries. Hence considering the injuries

sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded

towards injuries and pain and suffering. Further the petitioner

might not have attended to his work for two months and as such,

an amount of Rs.9,000/- towards loss of earnings by taking his

income at Rs.4,500/- per month. The evidence of PW.3 clearly

established that the petitioner due to permanent disability of 60%

has lost his earning capacity at 80%. Therefore, considering the

evidence of PW-3, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed

at 60%. According to the petitioner, he was doing hotel business

and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. However, as there was no

income proof, the income of petitioner can be taken at Rs.4,500/-

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

per month. Further, in light of the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimant is also entitled to the

future prospects and since the petitioner was aged about 42 years

at the time of accident, 30% of the income is added towards future

prospects. Then it comes to Rs.5,850/- (4,500 + 1,350 = 5,850).

As the claimant was aged about 42 years at the time of accident,

the appropriate multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex

Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2 would

be "14". Thus, the future loss of income due to 60% disability

comes to Rs.5,850 x 12 x 14 x 60/100 = Rs.5,89,680/-, which

the petitioner/claimant is entitled. Further considering Ex.A6

medical bills, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of

Rs.1,80,000/- towards medical bills and as such, the same is not

disturbed. The petitioner is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards

extra nourishment, attendant charges and transport charges. In

total, the claimant is entitled to Rs.8,18,680/-.

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

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J MACMA.No.3227 of 2016

Rs.4,80,000/- to Rs.8,18,680/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

realization against the 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. On such deposit, he is

entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing

any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 22.11.2022 pgp