Kadthala Ashok Reddy vs Mohammed Laheef And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5098 Tel

 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.SANTHOSH REDDY

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1184 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is directed against the award dated 31.07.2010 in

O.P.No.304 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-III-Additional District (FTC), Nalgonda (for short

'the Tribunal'), wherein the said claim application filed by the

appellant herein seeking compensation was allowed, awarding

Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer. Perused the

material on record.

3. The appellant herein filed claim application seeking

compensation of Rs.1 lakh on account of the injuries sustained

by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.10.2006

at about 09:30 a.m. According to the claimant, on that day, he was

proceeding in an auto bearing No.AP 24 V 8749 from Nalgonda to

Chinnamadaram Village and when the auto reached the outskirts of

Thorangal Village, the driver of the auto drove the same in a rash

and negligent manner at high speed, resulting in the auto turning

turtle. The claimant sustained grievous injuries and immediately

he was shifted to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda

for treatment. Police, Kanagal registered a case in Cr.No.95 of

2006 against the driver of the auto for the offence punishable under

Section 337 IPC.

4. Respondent No.1 herein, who is the driver and respondent

No.2, who is owner of the lorry, remained ex parte before the

Tribunal. Respondent No.3-insurer filed counter opposing the

claim and denying its liability to pay the compensation.

5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record,

the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the auto by its driver. The said finding

had become final, as no appeal is preferred by the respondents

questioning the same. The Tribunal further held that the

claimant was entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest

at 7.5% per annum.

6. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant preferred

the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

The Tribunal while deciding the award had taken the income

of the appellant at Rs.3,000/- per month and came to the conclusion

that the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of

Rs.4,02,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that the Tribunal

having come to the conclusion that an amount of Rs.4,02,000/- is

reasonable and just compensation, ought to have awarded

the above said amount, instead of restricting the claim to

Rs.1,00,000/-, irrespective of the claim of the claimant.

7. The only question that arises for consideration is - whether

the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, and if so

to what extent?

8. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous

injuries, besides fracture injury to his right femur and suffered

permanent partial disability of 50% due to restriction of right

knee movements. Since the claimant suffered 50% permanent

partial disability which is proved with cogent evidence of the

doctors (P.Ws.2 and 3) and Ex.A-9 disability certificate, the

Tribunal had rightly calculated the net loss of earnings of the

claimant after taking into consideration his income at Rs.3,000/-

per month. As there is no reliable evidence about the actual

income of the claimant and basing on the normal wage standards,

the Tribunal had arrived at the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/-

per month. As per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v.

PRANAY SETHI AND OTHERS1, the claimant is entitled for

additional 40% on the income towards future prospects, as he was

aged 22 years as on the date of accident. Applying the same, the

income of the claimant can be fixed at Rs.4,200/- per month

(Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1200/-). Further, the claimant suffered permanent

partial disability of 50%. The claimant was aged 22 years at the

time of accident and the Tribunal had applied the multiplier '17'.

But as the per the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

SARLA VARMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION2,

the multiplier that can be applied to the age of the claimant is '18'.

If the same is calculated, the loss of future earning capacity

2017 ACJ 2700

2009(6) SCC 121

comes to Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs.4,200/- x 12 x 50% x 18). Further, the

Tribunal awarded Rs.65,500/- towards treatment and medical

expenditure, Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1,000/-

towards transportation and Rs.1,500/- towards attendant charges.

The award of the above amounts is just and reasonable and they

are hereby confirmed. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled

for a compensation of Rs.5,24,600/- (Rs.4,53,600/- + Rs.65,500/- +

Rs.3,000/- + Rs.1,000/-).

9. On the above conclusions, the appeal is allowed. The award

of the Tribunal is modified by enhancing the compensation from

Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.5,24,600/-. The enhanced amount shall carry

interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of award passed by the Tribunal

i.e., 31.07.2010 till realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2

jointly and severally. The claimants shall pay deficit court fee

on the enhanced compensation, since the claim is for Rs.1,00,000/-.

If the deficit court fee is not paid as per Rule 475 of the M.V. Rules

before the Tribunal, the claimant is not entitled for execution of

Award in respect of enhanced compensation. There shall be no

order as to costs.

10. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

_______________________ A.SANTHOSH REDDY, J 13.10.2022 Lrkm