T. Gopal Goud Gopal vs B. Bhasker Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 6134 Tel

             HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                          M.A.C.M.A. No.804 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional

District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar,

Hyderabad in O.P. No.950 of 2006, dated 19.05.2008, 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 21.09.2005 while he was proceeding on his moped

bearing No. AIO-285 at about 10-00 A.M., near Midhani

Township, auto bearing No. AP.24.U.2498 being driven by its

driver came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed his moped. As a result, he fell down and received grievous

injuries. Immediately he was shifted to Owaisi Hospital for

treatment. Thus, he is claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-

under various heads.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries

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

MGP, J MACMA.No.804 of 2019

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 sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.09.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP.24.U.2498, by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation and if so, how much amount and from which of the respondent?

3) 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 A6. 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.1,28,000/-

towards compensation along with proportionate costs and interest

at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of

realization to the appellant-claimant against the respondent

Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally.

MGP, J MACMA.No.804 of 2019

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

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. 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.6, 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.1,28,000/- under various heads.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 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 reasonable compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

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 auto bearing No. AP.24.U.2498. Now the only

MGP, J MACMA.No.804 of 2019

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

compensation.

11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of the

PW-2, who treated the petitioner at Owisi Hospital shows that the

petitioner has sustained fracture of tibia and fracture of femur

and he underwent surgery for correction of above fractures on

28.09.2005 and 5.10.2005 respectively. His evidence further

shows that the petitioner took treatment in Owisi Hospital from

28.9.2005 to 11.10.2005 and he certified Ex.A5 medical bills for

Rs.63,709.20 ps. Therefore, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 coupled

with the documentary evidence shows that the petitioner has

sustained two grievous injuries. Hence considering the nature of

injuries sustained by the petitioner, an amount of Rs.50,000/- is

awarded for two grievous injuries @ Rs.25,000/- for each grievous

injury. Further the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of

Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards pain and sufferance and

Rs.63,709.20 ps. towards medical expenses and as such, the

same are not disturbed. Due to the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, he might not have attended to his work for some period

and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.10,500/- towards loss

of earnings for three and half months by taking his income at

MGP, J MACMA.No.804 of 2019

Rs.3,000/- per month. Further the petitioner is also granted an

amount of Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport and

attendant charges. The evidence of Doctor/PW.2 who gave

treatment to PW-1, clearly established that the petitioner

sustained 10% disability. Therefore, considering the evidence of

PW-2, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed at 10%.

According to the petitioner, he was a toddy tapper and the

accident occurred during the year 2005 and as there was no

income proof, the Tribunal rightly taken the income of petitioner

at Rs.3,000/- 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 25 years at the time of accident, 40% of the income is added

towards future prospects. Then it comes to Rs.4,200/- (3,000 +

1,2000 = 4,200). As the claimant was aged about 25 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 "18". Thus, the future loss of income due

to 10% disability comes to Rs.4,200 x 12 x 18 x 10/100 =

2017 ACJ 2700

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J MACMA.No.804 of 2019

Rs.90,720/-, which the petitioner/claimant is entitled. In total,

the claimant is entitled to Rs.2,59,929.20 ps, which can be

rounded off to Rs.2,60,000/-.

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

the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,28,000/- to Rs.2,60,000/-. 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 and 2 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 24.11.2022 pgp