Telangana High Court
T.Naga Raju vs B.Narasaiah Narasiah Anr on 23 September, 2022
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.3171 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 18.01.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.2397 of 2003 on
the file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad, for the injuries
sustained by him. The O.P. was filed claiming compensation of
Rs.5,00,000/- together with interest and costs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. On 31.03.2003 at about 12.30 p.m., the claimant was
proceeding on his Scooter from Choutuppal to Pedda Kondur
village as a pillion rider. At that time, Auto trolley bearing No.
AP-24-U-3365 came in opposite direction in rash and negligent
manner and hit the scooter, due to which, the claimant sustained
grievous multiple injuries and was shifted to Sai Sanjeevini
hospital, Dilsukhnagar, for treatment.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3171 of 2008
4. The Insurance Company/2nd respondent filed a detailed
counter disputing the manner of accident and contended that there
is contributory negligence on the part of the Driver of the Scooter
and also disputed the age and income of the claimant and denied
the liability of the Insurance Company.
5. The Tribunal, on examining the oral and documentary
evidence on record, partly allowed the O.P., awarding a total
compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- along with costs and interest @
7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
realization.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The only grievance of the appellant/claimant in this appeal is
that the Tribunal has granted less compensation. Therefore, the
appreciation will be only with respect to the quantum of
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
8. The learned Counsel for the appellant/Claimant contended
that the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier and future
prospects, while granting compensation and also ought to have
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3171 of 2008
calculated 60% of disability as per Ex.A-10, for the injuries
sustained by the appellant.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has
rightly considered all the factors and granted compensation of
Rs.1,60,000/- and the same need not be interfered with.
10. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, has granted compensation to the claimant
under the following heads:
1. Medical expenses Rs.40,000/-
2. Transportation charges Rs.5,000/-
3. Extra nourishment Rs.5,000/-
4. Future operation expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Pain and suffering Rs.35,000/-
6. Permanent partial disability Rs.60,000/-
TOTAL Rs.1,60,000/-
11. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the
appellant contended that the trial Court ought to have taken the
notional income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month or ought
to have taken Rs.15,000/- per annum as the notional income of the
claimant, while calculating the compensation.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3171 of 2008
12. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record as to the income
of the claimant, who was a student at the time of the accident and
was aged 21 years. Therefore, the notional income of Rs.15,000/-
per annum can be taken into consideration for the year 2003.
13. As per the proposition laid down in the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation & another1, the multiplier applicable for the age
group of 21 to 25 years is '18'. Inspite of the evidence of PW-1
i.e. the Doctor, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.A-10/disability
certificate issued by NIMS hospital as the same doctor, who issued
Ex.A-10, was not examined. On perusal of Ex.A-10, it is evident
that it was issued by one Dr.B.V.N.Prasad Rao of NIMS hospital
and PW-2 is also the doctor of NIMS hospital, who was examined
before the Court. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Syed Saleem & others v. Abdul Shukur & another2, it is not
necessary to examine the same Doctor, who treated the injured.
Therefore, Ex.A-10 can be taken into consideration to assess the
loss of earnings of the claimant. Therefore, the loss of earnings
(2009) 6 SCC 121
2007 (1) ALT 648
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3171 of 2008
would come to Rs.1,62,000/- by applying 60% disability and
multiplier '16' with that of the notional income of Rs.15,000/-
(Rs.15,000/- X 60/100 X 18). Further, the claimant is also entitled
for Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards
future operation expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards future treatment,
Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards
transportation charges and a further some of Rs.40,000/- for the
medical expenses already incurred by him as per Ex.A-7, as per
Exs.A-3 to A-8.
14. Thus, the claimant is entitled to compensation under
different heads as under:
1. Loss of earnings Rs.1,62,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3. Future operation expenses Rs.30,000/-
4. Future medical expenses Rs.15,000/-
5. Medical expenses already incurred Rs.40,000/-
6. Extra-nourishment Rs.10,000/-
7. Transportation charges Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,17,000/-
15. Thus, the claimant/appellant is entitled to an amount of
Rs.3,17,000/- towards compensation, payable by respondent Nos.1
to 2 jointly and severally within two months from the date of
GAC, J
MACMA.No.3171 of 2008
receipt of this order and the appellant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount as the accident occurred in the year 2003.
16. Appeal is accordingly allowed.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 22.09.2022
ajr
