J.Manyam 2 Ors vs Erukali Chandraiah 2 Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1531 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                     M.A.C.M.A.No.1700 of 2017
JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

in the order and decree, dated 28.03.2017 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.192 of 2015 on the file of the Chairman, Motor

Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District

Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short "the Tribunal"), the

appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking

enhancement of the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will

be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a

petition claiming compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- for the death

of one Janige Shanthamma, wife of claimant No. 1, mother of

claimant Nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the

deceased"), who died in a motor vehicle accident that

occurred on 19.07.2011. According to the claimants, on the

fateful day, the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.

AP 28 TB 0638, owned and driven by respondent No. 1,

insured with respondent No. 3, to go to Palem, at about 05:30

p.m., and while she was getting down from the auto at Palem

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

S.C.Wada, the driver of the said auto suddenly started and

moved in a rash and negligent manner without observing

about the alighting of the deceased. As a result, she fell on the

ground and sustained head injury, fracture of occipital bone,

hemorrhagic contusion of both frontal bones. Immediately,

she was shifted to Government Hospital, Wanaparthy and

from there, shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and later,

she was admitted as inpatient for 20 days in Gandhi Hospital,

Hyderabad. Thereafter, she took treatment with one

Dr.Seetharamaiah, Neuro Surgeon, Kurnool, who advised her

to take follow-up treatment. She spent Rs.2,00,000/- towards

treatment and medicine. On 11.05.2012, she succumbed to

the injuries while undergoing treatment. Thus, the appellants

filed the claim petition against the respondent Nos.1 & 3

(respondent No. 2 name was deleted by orders dated

08.09.2016) claiming compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs towards

compensation under different heads.

4. Before the tribunal, the respondent No. 1 filed counter

denying the petition allegations, income of the deceased,

death of the deceased while undergoing treatment. He further

submitted that the accident occurred due to gross negligence

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

on the part of the deceased and the insurance policy was in

force at the time of the accident and prayed to dismiss the

petition against respondent No. 1. Per Contra the respondent

No. 3, Insurance Company, filed counter denying the manner

in which the accident took place, avocation of the deceased

and the driver of the crime vehicle over loaded the passengers

in the vehicle and thus violated the terms and conditions of

the policy. It is also stated that the quantum of compensation

claimed is excessive, baseless and prayed to dismiss the

petition.

5. Considering the claim of the appellants, counter filed by

the respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and on evaluation of oral and

documentary evidence, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part,

awarding total compensation of Rs.60,000/- along with costs

and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the

date of the realization, to be deposited by the respondent

Nos.1 & 3, jointly and severally. Challenging the same, the

claimants have filed this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimants and the

learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2. Perused

the material available on record.

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

7. Learned counsel for the claimants contended that the

Tribunal should have seen that the deceased died only on

account of the injuries sustained by her in the alleged

accident. It is further contended that Tribunal erred in not

adding future prospects to the established income of the

deceased and that the amount awarded under the

conventional heads is meagre and needs to be enhanced.

8. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for

the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2 herein has

contended that the learned Tribunal has adequately granted

the compensation and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

9. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW.2, eyewitness to the accident,

coupled with the documentary evidence available on record

i.e., Exs.A.1, FIR; A.12, Charge Sheet, held that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of

Auto bearing No. AP 28 TB 0638. Therefore, this Court is not

inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal

which are based on appreciation of evidence in proper

perspective.

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

10. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned,

it is not in dispute that the accident took place on 19.07.2011

and the deceased died on 11.05.2012 i.e. ten months after the

accident. Though the claim is based on the death of the

deceased, there is no evidence adduced by the claimants to

show that the cause of death of the deceased was in

connection with the injuries sustained by her in the accident

that took place on 19.07.2011. Furthermore, no medical

evidence is adduced to disclose the cause of death of the

deceased. A perusal of medical evidence would reveal that as

per Ex.A.2, wound certificate issued by the doctor at

Government Hospital, Wanaparthy, the deceased sustained

head injury and underwent CT Brain plain scanning through

radiologist at SVS Hospital on 20.07.2011 where it is mention

that i) Hemarragic contusion of both frontal lobes; ii) Linear

undisplaced fracture of occipital bone and thereafter she was

admitted as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital on 25.07.2011 and

discharged on 28.07.2011. As per Exs.A.3 to A.10, medical

prescriptions, she took treatment privately in various

hospitals. Considering the avocation of the deceased, the

Tribunal has taken her monthly income at Rs.4,500/-, which

is very less. As the deceased was homemaker who used to

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

work as coolie apart from doing unpaid house hold work, this

Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of the deceased at

Rs.6,000/-. It is true that the accident occurred on

19.07.2011 and the deceased sustained injuries due to the

said accident. However, the deceased died on 11.05.2012 i.e.,

after ten months of the accident. In the said circumstance,

this Court is inclined to award Rs.60,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 10

months) is awarded towards loss of earnings during the

treatment period of ten months. The other amounts awarded

by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment

and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, are very meagre and

need to be enhanced. Considering medical evidence available

on record, Exs.A.2 to A.10, this Court is inclined to award

Rs.30,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards

medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings;

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

attendant charges. Thus, in all, the claimants are entitled to

Rs.1,50,000/-.

11. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed. The

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced

from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realization to be payable by the respondent

Nos.1 & 3 jointly and severally. The amount shall be

deposited within a period of one month from the date of

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

are entitled to withdraw their respective share amounts

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to

costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_____________________________ SMT. M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 06.04.2023 gms/tsr

MGP, J Macma_1700_2017

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1700 of 2017

DATE: 06.04.2023

gms/tsr