Bodrai Kurumurthy vs S.K.Aslam
2023 Latest Caselaw 1585 Tel

         HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.3166 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal

District Judge, Mahabubnagar in M.V.O.P. No.253 of 2015, dated

17.08.2017, the present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation granted by the Tribunal.

2. Appellant is the claimant in the main O.P. According to the

claimant, on 6.4.2015 at about 9-00 hours when he was attending

concrete work for making Railway bridge under a Contractor at

Teegala Chervu thanda limits of Mattampally Mandal of Nalgonda

District, the Millar vehicle AJAX bearing No. KL 25 F 5983 which

was supplying concrete mixture to the work spot, driven by its

driver, who is the respondent No.1 herein, in a rash and negligent

manner and hit the claimant. As a result, he sustained fracture

injury on his left leg and fracture to his right foot and sustained

permanent disability. He was admitted in Kodada hospital and

from there he was shifted to Sankya Hospital, Kukatpally,

Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for two days and

thereafter shifted to SVS Hospital, Mahabubnagar and underwent

operation for his left leg and treated as inpatient for 15 days and

MGP, J MACMA.No.3166 of 2017

spent Rs.1,00,000/-. According to the petitioner, he was a labour

earning Rs.9,000/- per month. Thus, he is claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondent Nos.1 to 3,

who are driver, owner and insurer of the AJAX Miller bearing No.

KL 25 F 5983 jointly and severally.

3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte; Respondent

No.3 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 the driver of the

offending vehicle was not having valid driving license at the time of

accident and that the claim is exorbitant and sought for dismissal

of the claim petition.

4. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.2,13,919/-

towards compensation along with interest at 9% per annum from

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

claimant against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 jointly and

severally.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri

A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for respondent

MGP, J MACMA.No.3166 of 2017

No.3-Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. Perused

the material available on record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A.1 to A.12, established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries

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

very meager amount under various heads.

7. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.3 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.

8. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence available on record,

rightly held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of AJAX Miller bearing No. KL 25 F 5983.

MGP, J MACMA.No.3166 of 2017

9. Coming to the quantum of compensation, Ex.A2 certified

copy of wound certificate issued by Sankhya Hospital, shows that

the claimant sustained fracture to left mid shaft of femur grievous

and crush injury to right foot. Initially he was admitted in Kodad

Hospital and from there to Sankhya Hospital, Hyderabad and took

treatment as inpatient for two days and thereafter shifted to SVS

Hospital, Mahabubnagar, where he took treatment as inpatient for

15 days. PW-2 who is working as Resident Medical officer, SVS

Hospital, deposed that the petitioner underwent surgery on

10.4.2015 for fracture of left proximal 1/3rd of humorous and

compound fracture of right malleolus, steel rod was inserted in the

left thigh. PW-3 who is Member of the Medical Board deposed

that he examined the claimant on 5.1.2016 and found the

disability is 30% for left and right lower limbs and that the

claimant can sit and squat with some difficulty. Ex.A6 disability

certificate contains his signature. Considering the evidence of

PWs.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

towards pain and suffering, Rs.36,000/- towards loss of earnings

during the period of treatment, Rs.7,919/- towards medical bills,

Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life due to disability to

MGP, J MACMA.No.3166 of 2017

the right leg, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and extra

nourishment charges and Rs.10,000/- towards transport and

other miscellaneous charges and as such, the same are not

disturbed.

10. Coming to the future loss of earnings due to the disability

sustained by the claimant at 30% as stated by PW-3, who is one of

the members in Medical Board, the tribunal erred in not

considering the disability sustained by the petitioner. Hence the

same can be considered. Considering the avocation of the

petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of petitioner

at Rs.6,000/- per month. As per the records, the claimant was

aged about 32 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 "16". Thus,

the future loss of earning capacity due to 30% disability comes to

Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 16 x 30/100 = Rs.3,45,600/-, which the

petitioner/claimant is entitled. In total, the claimant is entitled to

Rs.5,59,519/-.

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J MACMA.No.3166 of 2017

11. Coming to the rate of interest, the tribunal awarded interest

at 9% per annum, which appears to be excessive. Therefore, the

rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.2,13,919/- to Rs.5,59,519/-. The compensation amount shall

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

realization against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. The amount

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

receipt of a copy of this order. The claimant shall pay the deficit

court fee and on such payment of court fee only, he is entitled to

withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any

security. There shall be no order as costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 12.04.2023 pgp