Shaheen Begum, Hyderabad vs S C S Choudhary, Nagpur And 1 ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6178 Tel

             THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                            MA.CMA.NO.2788 OF 2015

                                    JUDGMENT

Being dissatisfied with the compensation granted by the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal - cum -XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court),

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad in MVOP.No.1372 of 2011, the claimant, who is the

injured, filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. In the claim petition it is stated that on 27.2.2011 at about 7.40 a.m., while

the claimant - Shaheen Begum, w/o Abdul Rasheed was proceeding along with

Kumari W/o Pochaiah on scooty bearing No. AP 23 D 2217 from Peerjadiguda to

Habsiguda side, and that when they are reaching Uppal Ring Road, the driver of the

lorry bearing No. MH 31 CQ 7406, drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

and dashed the claimant's vehicle from its behind, due to which, the claimant who is a

pillion rider of the scooty, fell down from the bike on the road towards right side and

the rider of the scooty fell down on the left side. The said lorry ran over the claimant

at the waist side, due to which, she sustained crush injury to the waist side and her

pelvic, kidneys and bladder in the stomach also were damaged. Immediately, she was

shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Hyderabad, and was admitted as inpatient and operation

was conducted and plastic surgery, as well as skin grafting were also done. Police

registered a case in Cr.No.103 of 2011 against the driver of the crime lorry.

3. The further case of the claimant is that because of the injuries sustained to

her, she has to take two injections daily, each costing Rs.3,000/-, and that due to the

accident, her life became miserable. The claimant was working in Vikcams

Management College, and used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/-per month and that after

office hours, she used to work with Dr.Samran Hussain Clinic and used to earn an

amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the accident, she sustained fractures on waist

side and also to spine and muscles/flesh came out and exposed at pelvic side, due to

which the blood is oozing out, and furthers the doctors are also not in a position to

control the same, and she is in critical position, and some times, she will be in the

coma i.e., unconsciousness. Because of the fractures, and grievous injuries, the

claimant is totally bed ridden and two persons were engaged to look after her in

Gandhi Hospital, and further she is disabled, and sustained 100% loss of income and

further it is very difficult for her to sit, squat and stand. With these averments, she

filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

4. The owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte and the insurance

company filed counter affidavit and contested the claim petition and sought for its

dismissal.

5. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, who is the claimant /

injured, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are the certified copies of FIR, charge

sheet and medico legal certificate, held that the accident occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. MH 31 CQ 7406 and that the

claimant sustained injuries in the said accident.

6. The Tribunal further based on the evidence, has drawn inference that at the

time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence

and the insurance policy, marked as Ex.B-1, was in force as on the date of the

accident.

7. With regard to quantum, Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1, who

deposed as per the claim petition and also considering the evidence of P.W.2, doctor,

who treated the claimant, and further considering Ex.A-15 disability certificate issued

by Gandhi Hospital Medical Board, whereunder the disability was assessed at 43%,

and further taking the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.5,000/-, and adding 50%

towards additional income, and by applying the multiplier of '17', as the deceased

was aged 28 years, arrived at Rs.15,30,000/-, and as the disability was at 43%,

awarded an amount of Rs.6,57,900/- towards loss of income. The Tribunal further

granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- for fracture of pelvic as per Ex.A-5, Rs.15,000/-

towards medical bills and extra-nourishment, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering;

Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges and, thus in all, granted an amount of

Rs.7,15,900/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the

claim petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 were jointly and

severally made liable to pay the compensation.

8. As stated above, not being satisfied with the compensation granted by the

Tribunal, the claimant filed the present appeal.

9. Head Sri K.Jagathpal Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and

Smt. Kalpana Ekbote, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance

Company.

10. In the present case, there is no dispute that the accident occurred due to

rash and negligent driving of the drive of the crime lorry bearing No. MH 31 CQ 7406

and that the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident, and that the respondents 1

and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation, and the dispute in the

present appeal is only with regard to quantum.

11. The case of the claimant is that prior to the accident, she was working in

Vikcams Management College and was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month

and that after office hours, she used to work with Dr. Samran Hussain Clinic and used

to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month, and thus she was earning an amount of

Rs.10,000/- per month, and that due to accident, she sustained injuries and lost the

earning capacity. P.W.2 is the doctor who treated the claimant at Gandhi Hospital.

He deposed that the claimant sustained pelvis public fracture superior and inferior

pubic rami and sacroiliac disruption and delacertion involving pubic left lateral

vaginal value and left thigh. That surgery was done to the claimant on 9.3.2011 by

the plastic surgeon, and skin grafting was done on 23.3.2011, and she was discharged

on 5.4.2011. That the injury sustained by the claimant was grievous in nature. He

further deposed that the claimant came to Gandhi Hospital Medical Board to obtain

physically disability certified and they issued Ex.A-15 disability certificate and it

contains his signature. That before issuing Ex.A-15, he examined the claimant

clinically and assessed the disability as 43%, which is partial and permanent in nature

and that the claimant has problem of stiffness of pelvic and left hip joint. In the cross-

examination he deposed that the disability of 43% is physical and as well as

functional. The insurance company has not lead any rebuttal evidence.

12. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the claimant

is a lady and is working at two places and admittedly the claimant is also a home

maker discharging multifarious duties, and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, I

am inclined to take the monthly income of the claimant as Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the

annual income of the claimant comes to Rs.1,20,000/-.

13. As per Ex.A-3, Medico Legal Certificate, the claimant is found to be aged

28 years, and she can be considered as self employed. In view of the judgment of

the Apex Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs. PRANAY SETHI1, she

is entitled to future prospects of 40%. 40% of Rs.1,20,000/- comes to Rs.48,000/-.

Thus the total income of the deceased including future prospects comes to

Rs.1,68,000/-. For the age group of the deceased, who is 28 years, the appropriate

multiplier is '17'. Thus the total comes to Rs.28,56,000/- (Rs.1,68,000/- x '17'

multiplier = Rs.28,56,000/-).

14. As per the evidence of P.W.2, doctor, who treated the claimant and issued

Ex.A-15 disability certificate, the claimant sustained 43% disability, which is partial

and permanent. 43% of Rs.28,56,000/- comes to Rs.12,28,080/-. Thus the claimant is

granted an amount of Rs.12,28,56,000/- towards of future earnings. The amount

granted by the Tribunal under this head is accordingly enhanced.

15. As per Exs.A-7 and A-10, the claimant is granted an amount of

Rs.10,450/- towards medical bills. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and

the injuries sustained by her and also considering the evidence of P.W.2, and the pain

and suffering she has undergone, the claimant is granted an amount of Rs.25,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards attendant, extra-nourishment and

attendant charges, Rs.25,000/- towards fracture to the pelvic pubic bone, Rs.25,000/-

towards loss of amenities in life. The amount granted by the Tribunal under the above

stated heads, is accordingly increased.

AIR 2017 SC 5157

16. Thus the claimant is granted the following amounts:

        1. Loss of future earnings                               -- Rs.12,28,080 - 00
        2. Medical bills                                         -- Rs. 10,450 - 00
        3. Pain and suffering                                    -- Rs. 25,000 - 00
        4. Extra nourishment, attendant and transport
           charges                                               -- Rs. 25,000 - 00
        5. Fracture to pelvic public bone                        -- Rs. 25,000 - 00
        6. Loss of amenities in life                             -- Rs. 25,000 - 00
                                                                   -------------------------
                                                                     Rs.13,35,530 - 00
                                                                  -------------------------

17. The amount of Rs.7,15,900/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to

Rs.13,35,530/- with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of the

claim petition till the date of realization. The respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and

severally liable to pay the compensation.

18. Any amount already deposited by the insurance company shall be given

credit to. The claimant shall pay the deficit court. The deposit of the amount and its

withdrawal, shall be as ordered by the Tribunal.

19. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above.

20. Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as

to costs.

------------------------------------------------

M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J DATE:28--11--2022 AVS