Telangana High Court
S.Sambaiah Sammaiah vs M/S. G.S.L.Coal Sales Pvt. Ltd., on 10 October, 2022
Bench: P.Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1920 OF 2016
JUDGMENT
This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the
injured/claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.1870 of
2008 by award dt.29.07.2011.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 28.06.2008
the appellant was working as a labourer at the Mettuguda Road and at
that time, a Ready Mixer Lorry bearing Registration No.AP 28TA 0867,
being driven by the driver, dashed the divider stone as a result of which,
the divider granite stone fell on the left leg of the appellant and the
appellant sustained a crush injury on his left leg and grievous injuries on
his head and other injuries all over his body.
3. It is stated that the appellant's left leg had to be amputated below
the knee and he had to take rest for a period of more than six months. It
is submitted that the claimant was an expert in building construction
labour work and due to amputation of his left leg, he has become
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
permanently disabled. The appellant claimed a sum of Rs.8,00,000/-
towards compensation, but the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of
Rs.4,84,000/-. Seeking enhancement of the compensation, the present
Appeal is filed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P.Ramakrishna Reddy,
submitted that the disability of the appellant has to be taken at 100% and
his monthly income should be adopted at Rs.6,000/- and the age of the
appellant is to be taken as 30 years. It is submitted that the Tribunal
ought not to have deducted any income towards personal expenses as
this is a case of injuries. He submitted that at least a sum of Rs.50,000/-
should have been awarded towards loss of amenities, pain and suffering,
trauma, etc.
5. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the
appellant also placed reliance on the following judgments.
(1) Mohan Soni Vs. Ram Avtar Tomar and others1.
(2) Govind Yadav Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited2.
2012 ACJ 583
2012 ACJ 28
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
(3) Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another3.
The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that due to
amputation of the leg of the appellant, the appellant had submitted a
quotation for the artificial leg for Rs.2,81,300/-, but the Tribunal has not
considered and allowed the same. He seeks compensation for the
artificial leg as well.
6. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is also
heard. He submitted that the Tribunal has awarded a reasonable
compensation and there is no need for interference therewith.
7. With regard to age of the appellant, it is submitted that at the time
of accident due to shock, the claimant had stated his age as 38 years
instead of 30 years.
8. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that except for stating so
in evidence, the claimant has not produced any material before the
Tribunal to prove that his age is 25 or 30 years as claimed by him.
2011 ACJ 1
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
9. Having regard to the fact that no material has been filed and it
cannot also be ruled out that the claimant would have been under shock
and would have stated the age as 38 years instead of 30 years, this Court
deems it fit and proper to adopt the multiplier 16, which is applicable to
the age limit of 31-35 years at the time of the accident. The monthly
income of the claimant is to be adopted @ Rs.6,000/- by taking Rs.200/-
- Rs.300/- as the income of a labourer per day.
10. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,
this Court observes that the appellant's left leg got crushed in the
accident and ultimately amputated. Since the appellant has lost his leg
and was aged about 30-35 years, his disability is to be taken as 90% and
the loss of earning capacity is quantified at 75%. 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 another4. Therefore, the
compensation has to be awarded accordingly.
11. While calculating accordingly [Rs.72,000 (earnings per annum) x
75% (% of loss of earning capacity) x 16 (multiplier)], the appellant is
(2011) 1 SCC 343
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
entitled to Rs.8,64,000/- towards loss of future earnings due to
amputation of leg. Regarding compensation for artificial leg, no
evidence is placed.
12. The compensation towards pain and suffering and loss of
amenities as allowed by the Tribunal is granted at Rs.1,00,000/-. The
loss of past earnings as awarded by the Tribunal is granted at
Rs.36,000/-. A sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards
medical treatment, transportation, extra nourishment and other
incidental expenses, is also granted.
13. In the light of the above discussion, the appellant is entitled to the
following amounts:
Head Compensation awarded
(1) Income (6000x12) Rs.72,000 per annum
(2) Loss of future earnings per
annum (75% of the annual
income) Rs.54,000 per annum
(4) Loss of future earnings
(54,000 x16) Rs.8,64,000
(5) Compensation towards
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
Medical treatment,
transportation, extra
nourishsment and other
incidental expenses as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,70,000
(6) Compensation towards
pain and suffering and
loss of amenities as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.1,00,000
(7) Loss of past income as
awarded by the Tribunal Rs.36,000
Total compensation awarded Rs.11,70,000/- along with interest
@ 7.5% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim petition till
payment.
14. In the result, the award dt.29.07.2011 in M.O.P.No.1870 of 2008
on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge,
City Civil Court, Hyderabad is modified by awarding a total
compensation of Rs.11,70,000/- (Rupees eleven lakhs and seventy
thousand only) with costs and interest thereon at 7.5% per annum from
the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation against both the
respondents jointly and severally. As the compensation payable to the
appellants as per law was found to be higher than the original claim of
Rs.8,00,000/-, the enhanced compensation of Rs.3,70,000/- is granted
MACMA No.1920 of 2016
subject to payment of Court fee on such enhanced compensation. The
respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount awarded
within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On
such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the same without
furnishing any security.
15. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
16. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this MACMA shall
stand closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 10.10.2022
?/Svv
