Telangana High Court
M.Battaiah Goud vs Akula Manaiah Anr on 19 April, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.1819 of 2010
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is filed by the claimant being aggrieved by the
order and decree dated 18.06.2010, in O.P.No.1739 of 2008 on the
file of XXII Additional Chief Judge-Cum-Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, City Criminal Courts at Hyderabad.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as
arrayed in the O.P.
3. The appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation as
the Tribunal has only awarded an amount of Rs.85,000/-, though
the appellant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
Therefore, the appreciation would be with respect to compensation
alone and not of liability.
4. Heard both sides and perused the record.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that
the appellant was working as driver cum owner of the vehicle as on
the date of accident, the Tribunal has erred in taking the total
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/-p.m.. It is further contended
that though the appellant has claimed Rs.5,000/- and Rs.9,000/-
under the heads of transport and extra nourishment and Rs.30,000/-
towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded meager
amount of Rs.1,250/- under the heads of transport and extra
nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Further,
the Tribunal has failed to award any amount towards loss of
amenities, social status, shock and mental agony and loss of
marriage prospectus. It is the specific contention of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal might have considered
the judgments of the Apex Court while granting compensation and
prayed to enhance the amount.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Insurance
Company contended that there is no error or irregularity in the
orders passed by the Tribunal and prayed to dismiss the appeal.
7. It is an admitted fact that the Tribunal has come to a
conclusion that the claimant being the insured has sustained
injuries due to accident which took place on 02.05.2008 at about
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
8:30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of the Tractor and
trolley bearing No.AP-25G-2581 and AP-23M-2750 by its driver
and therefore, he is entitled for compensation. As per the
pleadings, the appellant has sustained grievous injuries on left
thigh, head and all over the body. Ex.A-3 is the injury certificate
and Exs.A-4 to A-8 are the discharge summary card, prescriptions
disability certificate, estimation certificate and X-ray film
respectively. The Tribunal has awarded compensation under
various heads by way of lump sum amount without adopting the
calculations. It is the specific finding of the Tribunal that the
appellant was the driver, but the driving license of the driver was
not filed in order to prove that he was the driver as on the date of
the accident. But as per the proposition laid in Ramachandrappa
vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company
Limited1, the income of the deceased was taken as Rs.4,500/- per
month even in the absence of documentary evidence.
8. P.W.2 is the Doctor, who was working as Orthopedic
surgeon in Gandhi Hospital was examined before the Court. The
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
disability certificate was issued by him and not by the medical
board constituted as per the norms of the Government. As per the
disability certificate, the appellant sustained 25% of the partial
permanent disability. The evidence of P.W.2 discloses that he
treated P.W.1 as in-patient in his hospital and the appellant got
admitted in the hospital with comminuted fracture shaft of left
femur at middle third and was discharged on 16.05.2008. The
Tribunal has not taken into consideration, the disability certificate
issued by P.W.2. In the cross-examination, P.W.2 admitted that
appellant was treated surgically at Gandhi Hospital and later at Sai
Specialty Clinics for four times. In the present case, the
Doctor/P.W.2 has given the disability certificate assessing the
disability of the appellant as 25%.
9. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Syed Saleem and
others v. Abdul Shukur & another2, held that there is no
requirement to prove disability by examining the Doctor who
treated the victim and to obtain such certificate from the very same
Doctor. In the present case, PW-2 is the Doctor who examined the
2007 (1) ALT 648
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
appellant and issued Ex.A-6/disability certificate and the appellant
was also treated at Sai Speciality Clinic for four times. The
evidence of PW-2 clearly discloses that the appellant approached
him for the purpose treatment and he treated the appellant and
issued disability certificate i.e. Ex.A-6, assessing the disability to
be 25%, therefore, it is just and necessary to consider the disability
certificate for grant of compensation to the appellant.
10. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others3, the claimant is
entitled for future prospects of 40%. As stated supra, the income
of the claimant is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month. Considering the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa v.
Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd4, if 40% is added
to the income of the claimant, it would come to Rs.6,300/-
(Rs.4,500 + Rs.1,800). The age of the claimant as on the date of
accident was 25 years as per Ex.A-6/disability certificate. As per
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma v.
2017 ACJ 2700
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
Delhi Transport Corporation & another5, the appropriate
multiplier would be '18' for the age group of 15 to 25 years.
Therefore, the annual income of the claimant would come to
Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300 X 12). If multiplier '18' and disability of
25% are applied to the annual income, it would come to
Rs.3,40,200/- (Rs.75,600 X 18 X 25/100). Though it is contended
by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant has
incurred amount towards medical expenses, no bills are filed
before the Court. Even in the absence of medical bills and oral and
documentary evidence, the Tribunal ought to have granted an
amount of Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses.
11. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation under the
following heads:
1. Loss of earnings including Rs.3,40,200/-
disability
2. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.2,000/-
4. Medical expenses Rs.5,000/-
5. Extra-nourishment Rs.5,000/-
6. Attendant charges Rs.10,000/-
TOTAL Rs.3,87,200 /-
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.1819 of 2010
12. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.85,000/- to
Rs.3,87,200/-, with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from
the date of petition till the date of realization, payable by the
respondents jointly and severally to the claimant within two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee, as the accident
occurred in the year 2008.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 19.04.2023
dv
