Abdul Jameel vs K. Lingaiah Babu
2022 Latest Caselaw 5242 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.664 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil

Court, Hyderabad in M.V.O.P. No.896 of 2010, dated 23.12.2017,

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 26.12.2009 while the petitioner was proceeding from

Vikarabad to Koukuntla in his auto bearing No. AP.28.V.5878 and

when he reached near Vikarabad bus depot bridge, suddenly one

lorry bearing No.AP.16.TV.2450 came in rash and negligent

manner with high speed and dashed his auto from back side, as a

result, the auto turned turtle and the petitioner fell on the road

and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Thus, he is

claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads.

3. Respondent No.1 died and respondent Nos.3 and 4 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 claimant and further contended that

MGP, J MACMA.No.664 of 2019

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 pleaded accident had occurred resulting in injuries sustained by the petitioner Abdul Jameel, due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No. AP.16.TV.2450 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

3) To what relief?

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

petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and also got examined PW.2

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.1,15,000/-

towards compensation along with interest at 6% per annum from

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

claimant against the respondent Nos.2 to 4 jointly and severally.

MGP, J MACMA.No.664 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 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6, established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained 65% permanent disability due to the

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

awarded very meager amount of Rs.1,15,000/- 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 and the involvement of lorry bearing No.AP.16.TV.2450.

MGP, J MACMA.No.664 of 2019

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 the

claimant/PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence shows

that he was admitted in Osmania General Hospital on 26.12.2009

and discharged on 18.01.2010 and he sustained fracture of shaft

femur M/3rd right. Further according to the evidence of PW-2,

who is the Member of Medical Board, the petitioner was suffering

with fracture shaft femur in right side with implant C2 and was

examined by him clinically and radiologically, physically and

issued the disability certificate assessing the disability as 65%,

which is permanent in nature. PW-2 further stated in his

evidence that the petitioner is facing difficulty in sitting, squatting

and walking stiffness of right knees joint and that even after

physiotherapy, the percentage of disability cannot be reduced.

But the tribunal did not consider the disability sustained by the

petitioner. However, considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 2

coupled with the documentary evidence, the disability sustained

by PW-1 can be taken at 65%.

MGP, J MACMA.No.664 of 2019

12. According to the petitioner, he was auto driver and was

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

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

month while calculating the compensation towards the disability.

As per the records, the claimant was aged about 46 years at the

time of accident. Then the appropriate multiplier in light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation1 would be "13". Thus, the future loss of income due

to 65% disability comes to Rs.4,500 x 12 x 13 x 65/100 =

Rs.4,56,300/-, which the petitioner/claimant is entitled. The

petitioner is also entitled for Rs.25,000/- towards pain and

sufferance and Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment,

attendant charges and transport charges. In total, the claimant is

entitled to Rs.5,01,300/-. However, since the claim is for

Rs.5,00,000/- the award amount is restricted to Rs.5,00,000/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/-. The enhanced amount shall

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

of realization against the respondent Nos.2 to 4. The amount

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J MACMA.No.664 of 2019

shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of

receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit of compensation

amount by the respondent Nos.2 to 4, the claimant is at liberty to

withdraw the same without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 21.10.2022 pgp