Kallu Shekar vs S. Vajramma
2022 Latest Caselaw 5285 Tel

         HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A. No.2773 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation

awarded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-III

Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad made in

O.P. No. 207 of 2008, dated 28.08.2012, the present appeal is

filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of the

compensation.

The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellant, claimant, filed a petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident that occurred on 26.08.2007. According to the

claimant, on 26.08.2007, while he was attending to coolie work

on the offending tractor bearing No. AP 1M 6388, owned by

respondent No. 1 and insured with respondent No. 2, when the

tractor reached the fields of of Appani Bhumaiah, at 8:30 a.m.,

the driver drove the tractor in rash and negligent manner and at

high speed, as a result of which, the tractor turned turtle and

the claimant sustaned multiple injuries as the tractor fell on

him. He was treated at several hospitals, including Chalmeda

Ananda Rao, Institute of Medical Science, Bommakal,

Karimnagar, where he was admitted as inpatient for 26 days.

According to the claimant, he had to spent Rs.40,000/- towards

treatment and medical expenditure, was earning Rs.100/- per

day and sustained disability and incapaciated to attend any

works. Therefore, he laid the claim for Rs.8.00 lakhs against

the respondents under different heads towards compensation.

Before the Tribunal, the respondents contested the claim

denying the averments made in the claim-petition. After

analyzing the evidence available on record, the tribunal held

that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries in the

accident on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor

by its driver and accordingly awarded an amount of

Rs.1,15,000/- as compensation to be paid by the respondents.

Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the present

appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.

Learned Counsel for the appellant mainly submits that the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on lower

side. It is further submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.2,

the treating doctor, the claimant sustained contusion over left

pubic region, fracture of left superior and inferior pubic rami,

which is grievous in naure and that he was on bed rest for three

months and on physical examination, he has estimated that the

claimant has suffered 38% permanent disability, but the tribunal

has not awarded any amounts towards permanent disability.

It is also submitted that as per the principles laid down by the

Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs.

Pranay Sethi and others1, the appellant is also entitled to the

future prospects at 40% and also Rs.1,00,000/- under the heads

of loss of expectation of life and loss of amenities in life i.e.,

marriage prospects. Therefore, it is argued that the income of

the appellant may be taken into consideration reasonably and

prayed to enhance the same.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd

respondent-Insurance Company has contended that since P.W.2

was a private doctor and as no certificate issued by the

competent Medical Board was produced to susbtantiate that the

2017 ACJ 2700

claimant had sustianed 38% permanent disability, the tribunal

has rightly rejected the claim for permanent disability. It is

contended that considering the nature of injuries sustained by

the claimant, the tribunal has rightly awarded just

compensation and the same needs no interference by this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A perusal of the impugned order would show that the

Tribunal on issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred

due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver,

considering the evidence of P.W.1, the claimant coupled with

the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.A.1, FIR copy, Ex.A.3, charge

shet, has categorically observed that the appellant sustained

grievous injuries in the accident caused due to the rash and

negligent driving of the tractor by its driver and has answered

the issue in favour of the claimant and against the respondents.

Further, the insurance company has not produced any evidence

on record to show that there was no negligence on the part of

the driver of the tractor. Therefore, I see no reason to

interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident

occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of

the tractor.

In order to award compensation in case of personal

injuries, the Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and

another2 held as under:

"5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following:

Pecuniary damages (Special Damages)

(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.

(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:

(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;

(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages)

(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.

(v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage).

(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity). In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii)(a) and (iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads (ii)(b),

(iii), (v) and (vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of

MACD 2011 (SC) 33

amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage) and loss of expectation of life. Assessment of pecuniary damages under item (i) and under item (ii)(a) do not pose much difficulty as they involve reimbursement of actuals and are easily ascertainable from the evidence. Award under the head of future medical expenses - item (iii) -- depends upon specific medical evidence regarding need for further treatment and cost thereof. Assessment of non-pecuniary damages - items

(iv), (v) and (vi) - involves determination of lump sum amounts with reference to circumstances such as age, nature of injury/deprivation/disability suffered by the claimant and the effect thereof on the future life of the claimant. Decision of this Court and High Courts contain necessary guidelines for award under these heads, if necessary. What usually poses some difficulty is the assessment of the loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability - item (ii)(b)."

In the light of the principles laid down in the

aforementioned case, it is suffice to say that in determining the

quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident,

who are disabled either permanently or temporarily, efforts

should always be made to award adequate compensation not

only for the physical injury and treatment but also for the loss

of earning, inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities,

which would have been enjoyed but for disability caused due to

the accident.

In order to establish his case, the appellant, claimant,

examined himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as

P.W.2. A perusal of Ex.A2, injury certificate, discloses that the

claimant has sustained contusion over left pubic region 4 x 4 cm

and Ex.A.8, X-Ray flim, shows that there was fracture of left

pubic bone. The evidence of P.W.2, doctor, is to the effect

that the claimant has sustained fracture of left superior and

inferior pubic bone, which is grievous in nature. It was also his

evidence that the claimant was on bed rest for three months

and that due to the injury, the claimant cannot squat, climb

stairs without support and cannot atend manual work. He has

estimated the claimant to have sustained 38% permanent

disability. Admittedly, no disability certificate issued by the

competent Medical Board was produced by the claimant to

susbtantiate his claim of disability. But the fact remains that

the medical evidence i.e., Ex.A.2 and P.W.2, treating doctor,

clinchingly establishes the fact that the claimant has sustained

certain disability due to the fracture of left pubic bone.

Considering the said evidence and taking into account the naure

of injuries suffered by the claimant, this Court is inclined to

estimate the disability sustained by the claimant at 20%.

Coming to the quantum of compensation, even according

to the claimant, he was coolie and earning Rs.100/- per day,

which was rightly accepted by the tribunal. However, in view of

the decision of the Apex Court in Pranay Sethi (supra),

considering the age of the claimant at 19 years, future

prospects at 40% needs to be added to the established income of

the claimant. Duly adding 40% to the monthly income of the

claimant, the future monthly income of the claimant comes to

Rs.4,200/- per month (Rs.3,000/- plus 40% thereof). Inasmuch

as the claimant was 19 years at the time of the accident, duly

applying multiplier '18', the total loss of earnings on account of

his disability would be Rs.1,81,440/- (Rs.4,200 x 12 x 18 x

20/100). Admittedly, the appellant had taken treatment in

various hospitals as inpatient. Therefore, the tribunal has rghtly

awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/-

towards extra nourishment, travelling and attendant charges;

and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in all, the

claimant is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.2,16,440/-.

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part by enhancing

the compensation from Rs.1,15,000/- to Rs.2,16,440/-. The

enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from

the date of order passed by the tribunal till the date of

realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and

severally. Time to deposit the amount is two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the

claimant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing

any security. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 26.10.2022 tsr