M. Dinkar, vs The Apsrtc,
2023 Latest Caselaw 674 Tel

                                         1                                  RRN,J
                                                             MACMA No.1535 of 2016


     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                        M.A.C.M.A.No.1535 OF 2016
JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 aggrieved by the order and decree dated

30.04.2015, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2165 of 2012 by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge

(Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal").

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a petition

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in

the motor accident. It is stated that on 20.08.2012 at about 6.45 pm,

at Jubilee Bus Stand, Marredpally, Hyderabad, the petitioner was

turning inside Jubilee Bus Stand on his Chetak Scooter bearing

No.AP11-A-2187 to see off his parents at Jubilee Bus Stand and in

the meantime, the driver of the RTC Bus bearing No.AP29-Z-1051 of

Karimnagar Depot drove the said Bus in a rash and negligent manner

at high speed and suddenly took a turn and dashed the scooter of the

petitioner without following traffic rules. Immediately after the 2 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016

accident, the petitioner was shifted to Apollo Hospital, Secunderabad,

in an Ambulance for treatment. The petitioner sustained a head

injury, contusion of right temporal, left frontal, parietal, temporal and

occipital lobes, subdural haemorrhage below tentorium and left

temporal parietal region and the TBI with seizures inability to walk

and left temporal SHD with minimal midline shift and subarachanoid

haemorrhage and fracture at BB left leg, with displaced tibial lower

1/3rd and displaced, segmental fracture fibula lower 1/3rd. Therefore,

he laid the claim against the respondents seeking compensation of

Rs.8.00 lakhs.

4. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and

got marked Exs.A1 to A21. No oral and documentary evidence was

adduced on behalf of the respondents.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that prior

to the accident, the petitioner was a polytechnic student and due to

the accident, he lost one academic year. The Tribunal ought to have

awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- towards

suffering and mental agony, which is erroneous. The Tribunal ought

to have awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- under the head of

physiotherapy charges and the Tribunal also failed to consider the

disability certificate and also the Tribunal failed to award 3 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016

compensation under heads of the loss of income and future prospects

etc.

6. After considering the oral and documentary evidence

available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding a

sum of Rs.2,90,000/- towards compensation with interest at 7.5% per

annum. According to the petitioner, the Tribunal erroneously granted

a very meagre amount and for enhancement of the same, the

petitioner filed the present appeal.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents

would contend that the doctor, who treated the patient, has not given

a disability certificate but some other doctor has issued the same. In

such case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing the compensation of

Rs.2,90,000/- in all and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner brought to the notice of

this Court the judgment rendered by the High Court of Andhra

Pradesh in Charan Singh vs. G.Vittal Reddy and another1 wherein

it was held that

"Under those circumstances, we are of the considered view that Section 4(1) (c) does not stipulate a requirement of assessment by the medical practitioner who had treated the workmen concerned at

2003 (4) ALD 183 (DB) 4 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016

the first instance. It is always open for the qualified medical practitioner to assess the loss of disability vis-à-vis loss of earning capacity with reference to the injuries sustained by him and if the employer or the Insurance Company was not satisfied with the assessment made by the medical practitioner, whose evidence was produced, contra evidence ought to have been adduced by the Insurance Company to rebut or impeach the evidence of the medical officer adduced on behalf of the workmen. In the absence of such evidence, we cannot find fault with the order of the learned Commissioner."

10. Thus, as seen above, the contention of the respondents

that the doctor, who treated the patient, has not given a disability

certificate but some other doctor has issued the same does not come

to the rescue of the respondents.

11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

income of the petitioner may be considered as Rs.10,000/- as the

petitioner is aged about 20 years and at the time of the accident he

was quite hale, healthy, young and energetic and was studying

Polytechnic Diploma in Engineering. In support of his claim, he relied

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in V. Mekala vs.

M.Malathi and another2, wherein it was held that an injured girl

aged 16 years, who is brilliant in studies and is a student of class XI

due to an accident suffered 70% disablement and is unable to walk

without crutches, was entitled to a notional income at Rs.10,000/-

per month, along with 50% towards future prospects taking

2014 ACJ 1441 5 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016

disablement at 70% with a multiplier of 18 to calculate loss of earning

capacity. She was also awarded compensation under the heads of

loss of amenities, attendant charges and loss of enjoyment of life and

marriage prospects. Thus, this Court is of the view that the petitioner

in the present case stands on a similar footing to that of the above

mentioned case and the observation of the Tribunal holding that the

person who issued Ex.A20 disability certificate did not treat the

petitioner and the same cannot be taken into consideration, is

discarded.

12. In view of the above discussions and keeping in view that

the petitioner was pursing his Diploma in Engineering and due to the

disability, his bright future with regard to sustainable job

opportunities has been hindered. As such, this Court is inclined to

fix his monthly income @ Rs.7,000/- per month including with future

prospects of 40% as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and

others3 is to be considered. Therefore, the future prospectus of the

injured comes to Rs.1,17,600/- (84,000 + 33,600 = 1,17,600/-).

From this, 30% is to be considered on account of disablement

(Rs.1,17,600 x 30%) = 35,280/-, the appropriate multiplier is 18 as

the petitioner is aged 20 years as per Sarla Verma's case. Thus, the

3 2017 ACJ 2700 6 RRN,J MACMA No.1535 of 2016

loss of future earnings of the petitioner would come to Rs.35,280/- x

18 =6,35,040/- which is rounded off to Rs.6,35,000/-.

13. The Tribunal failed to award compensation under various

heads, especially under medical expenses/treatment despite the

petitioner filed Ex-A10 and A11 bills. As such, this Court is of the

considered view to grant compensation to the petitioner as against the

compensation amount granted by the Tribunal as follows:

       Head          Amount awarded       Amount enhanced by
                       by Tribunal            this Court

Transport Charges          Nil                Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering     Rs.15,000/-            Rs.25,000/-
Medical expenses      Rs.1,65,000/-          Rs.2,15,000/-
Extra nourishment      Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-
Attendant charges      Rs.15,000/-            Rs.15,000/-
Loss of studies        Rs.30,000/-            Rs.30,000/-
Injuries               Rs.50,000/-            Rs.50,000/-
Loss of future             Nil               Rs.6,35,000/-
earning/permanent
disability
        Total         Rs.2,90,000/-          Rs.9,90,000/-

14. Though the claimed amount is Rs.5,00,000/-, invoking the

principle of just compensation, and in view of the settled law, this

Court is empowered to grant compensation beyond the claimed

amount. Hence, the compensation amount awarded is enhanced

from Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two Lakh and ninety thousand Only) to

Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety Thousand only).

                                       7                                  RRN,J
                                                          MACMA No.1535 of 2016


15.        Accordingly,   the    appeal   is   allowed,   enhancing       the

compensation from Rs.2,90,000/- (Rupees two Lakh and ninety

thousand Only) to Rs Rs.9,90,000/- (Rupees Nine Lakh and Ninety

Thousand only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the

date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said

compensation amount together with interest and costs after giving

due credit to the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of

two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

However, the petitioner is directed to pay the deficit court fee on the

enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

9th day of February, 2023 PNS