Navabu Sai Kumar vs Gothrolla Narsaiah Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 1546 Tel

                                1                                      RRN,J
                                                       MACMA No.1850 OF 2016



THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                   M.A.C.M.A No.1850 of 2016

JUDGMENT:

This M.A.C.M.A is filed by the appellant/petitioner

aggrieved by the Order and decree dt.10.02.2016 in O.P.

No.569 of 2012 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents

Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge at Nizamabad

(for short, 'the Tribunal').

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal awarded

compensation of Rs.3,34,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. to the

appellant/petitioner against his claim of Rs.8,00,000/-, to be

payable by the respondents, on account of injuries sustained

by him in the accident which occurred due to rash and

negligent driving of the driver of the Auto bearing No.AP-25-

X-1353 of the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle, who

dashed a parked tractor and trolley bearing No.AP-25-AD-

6910. As a result of the injuries, the petitioner's left leg

above the knee was amputated and he incurred heavy

amounts towards treatment.

                                2                                     RRN,J
                                                     MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte

and respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations of

the claim petition and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. The petitioner in proof of his case, examined PWs 1 and

2 and got marked Ex.A1 to A11. On behalf of respondent

No.2 no oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was got

marked.

5. Heard Sri Azar Sravan Kumar, learned Counsel

appearing for the appellant/Petitioner and Sri V. Krishna

Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent

No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

6. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the

appellant/petitioner that the Tribunal failed to award just

compensation under various heads and the same deserves to

be enhanced on the ground that there is ample medical

evidence on record that the petitioner sustained grievous

injury leading to amputation of his left leg above the knee

and he was treated inpatient from 15-11-2011 to 28-11-2011

and lost his capacity of future earnings due to the accident 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

and the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability of the

petitioner on the lower side. He further contended that the

Tribunal erred in awarding compensation under various

heads as a lump sum at Rs.25,000/-. He also contended

that the income of the petitioner should be taken on the

higher side and the same deserves to be added with future

prospects, and that the Tribunal granted very low rate of

interest i.e. 6% p.a. and the same needs to be interfered by

this Court. Accordingly, prayed to allow the appeal by

enhancing the compensation.

7. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the

2nd respondent/Insurance Company had contended that

there is no irregularity in the impugned order as the Tribunal

rightly considered the evidence on record and awarded

compensation in a justified manner. He further contended

that the avocation and income of the petitioner were not

proved hence compensation was also on the higher side.

Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. The issue with regard to the involvement of the Auto of

the 1st respondent/owner and the manner of the accident 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

was rightly decided in favour of the petitioner as the

respondents failed to adduce any contrary evidence or elicit

anything material in the cross-examination. As such, the

aspect of negligence needs no scrutiny. Both respondents

are liable to compensate the petitioner jointly and severally

as observed by the Tribunal. The only point to be considered

in the present appeal is whether the petitioner is entitled to

enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. It is noticed that the Tribunal awarded a sum of

Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner under the head 'injury, shock

and pain and suffering'. The grant of compensation under

this head is justified as it is seen from the record that the

petitioner sustained one grievous injury and other simple

injuries, and assuming that the Tribunal awarded

Rs.25,000/- for one grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- towards

pain and suffering which comes to Rs.50,000/- there is no

fault committed by the Tribunal in awarding such

compensation under the above said head. However, this

court is inclined to award Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner

under the head simple injuries.

                           5                                   RRN,J
                                              MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

10. On guesswork, the Tribunal assessed the monthly

earnings of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- and observed that

the annual income of the petitioner would be Rs.36,000/-.

However, the petitioner claimed to be a fisherman and

labourer earning Rs.20,000/- per month. The Tribunal

disbelieved the same as no proof was filed in support of the

same and Ex-A2 shows that the petitioner was a student.

However, this court is inclined to fix the monthly income of

the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramcandrappa V. Manager,

Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.,1

wherein it was held that the monthly income of a victim of a

motor vehicle accident can be assessed at Rs.4,500/- per

month in the absence of income proof. Hence, the annual

income of the petitioner can be taken as Rs.54,000/-. To

this, future prospects at 40% is to be added as per the

decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others 2 as the

petitioner was aged below 40 at the time of the accident.

    ( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236
2 2017 ACJ 2700
                               6                                       RRN,J
                                                      MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

Thus, the annual income of the petitioner with future

prospects would come to Rs.75,600/-.

11. The Tribunal applied the multiplier "18" which is

justified as the petitioner's age, though there were

inconsistent versions, was under 20 years. One of the

important issues to be addressed here is whether the

disability of the petitioner at 80% vide Ex.A4 disability

certificate can be considered or if the Tribunal was justified

in considering disability @ 40% for the purpose of calculation

of future loss of income. Keeping in view of the age of the

petitioner, the Tribunal did such an exercise and this court is

of the opinion that keeping in view the age of the petitioner at

the time of the accident and the impact of it on his mental

health at a such tender age, this court is inclined to consider

the disability of the petitioner at 50%. Thus, the total loss of

future income due to disability would come to Rs.6,80,400/-

(Rs.75,400/- x 18 x 50/100).

12. It is also noticed that the Tribunal has awarded a

lumpsum of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner under the heads

medical expenses, extra nourishment, attendant, transport, 7 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

incidental charges and other expenses. There is no

justification or explanation for such an exercise. Assuming

that the Tribunal intended to award Rs.25,000/- to the above

heads in an equal manner, the compensation to each head

would come to Rs.5,000/- and the same is meager. Thus,

this court is inclined to enhance such an amount from

Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

13. In all, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.7,80,400/-

towards compensation under all heads.(Rs.50,000/- +

Rs.10,000/- + Rs.6,80,400/- + Rs.40,000/-). The Tribunal

granted low rate of interest i.e. @ 6% p.a., but as the Courts are

consistently awarding interest @ 7.5 % p.a., the same needs to be

enhanced to 7.5% p.a.

14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part,

enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.3,34,200/- to Rs.7,80,400 with interest at 7.5% per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

The respondents are directed to deposit the amount together

with costs and interest after giving due credit to the amount

deposited earlier, if any, within two months from the date of 8 RRN,J MACMA No.1850 OF 2016

receipt of a copy of this judgment. Upon such deposit, the

petitioner is permitted to withdraw the entire amount. There

shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any pending,

shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

10th day of April, 2023.

BDR/PNS