Telangana High Court
K.Danaiah vs The Ap State Road Transport ... on 14 February, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.717 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This MACMA is filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking enhancement of
compensation aggrieved by the order and decree dt.12.11.2014
passed in M.V.O.P.No.968 of 2013 by the XIII Additional Chief
Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short
"the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2012 at about
9.30 a.m., the petitioner had visited Government Hospital, Bhongir,
for getting treatment to his injured legs and returning to his house.
While entering into bus-stand in front of Government Junior
College, the driver of RTC Bus bearing No.AP-10Z-9518 drove it
while coming out of the bus-stand in a rash and negligent manner
and dashed the petitioner, due to which, his right leg was fractured
and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhongir, and later
shifted to Gandhi Hospital where his leg was amputated, from there
on 14.12.202 he was taken to Raghavendra Hospital, ECIL, where
2 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
his leg was again amputated below knee. Therefore, he laid the
claim against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.15.00
lakhs.
4. Respondents filed counter denying the petition
allegations.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred resulting
in injuries to the petitioner K. Danaiah, due to the
rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle
(APSRTC Bus bearing registration No.AP-10Z-9518)
by its driver?
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation
and if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of
the respondents?
iii) To what relief?
6. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3
and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. No oral or documentary evidence
was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
7. After considering the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, the Tribunal allowed the O.P. in part awarding
a sum of Rs.6,38,000/- 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.
3 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that
though the petitioner is having agricultural land to an extent of
Ac.05-12 gts., and claimed that he is an agriculturist, earning
Rs.20,000/- per month, the Tribunal had taken very meager
income of the petitioner i.e. @ Rs.3,800/- per month. He further
contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.13,00,000/-
under the head disability, but awarded only Rs.3,58,000/- and also
not considered 30% additional compensation as per Apex Court
judgment reported in Santosh Devi1. He further contended that
no amount was awarded towards purchase of artificial leg and also
contended that due to his disability, the vast land owned by him
will not fetch income.
10. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents would contend that the Tribunal was justified in fixing
the compensation of Rs.6,38,000/- in all and prayed to dismiss the
appeal.
11. The Tribunal, based on Exs.A8 and A9 which are the
Pahani copy and copy of pass book pertaining to the land belonging
to the petitioner, fixed the income of the petitioner @ Rs.46,000/-
p.a (Rs.3,833/- per month). However, learned counsel for the
2012ACJ1428 SC
4 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
petitioner contended that the income fixed by the Tribunal is
meager and prayed to consider the monthly income of the petitioner
@ Rs.10,000/-. This Court is inclined to fix the monthly income of
the petitioner @ Rs.7,000/- (Rs.84,000/- per annum.) The
petitioner was not awarded future prospects and the same at 25%
as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National
Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and others2 is to
be considered. Therefore, the future prospects of the petitioner
comes to Rs.1,05,000/- (84,000 + 21,000/-). Though the disability
of the petitioner is assessed at 60%, this Court is inclined to fix it at
80% as the income of the petitioner was solely out of agriculture
and due to such disability, it is almost impossible for him to carry
on the same. As such, 80% is to be considered on account of
disablement (Rs.1,05,000 x 80/100) = 84,000/-, the appropriate
multiplier is 13 as per Sarla Verma3 as the petitioner is aged 48
years. Thus, the loss of future earnings of the petitioner including
future prospects would come to Rs.84,000/- x 13 = 10,92,000/-.
12. 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:
2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.
(2009) 6 SCC 121
5 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
Head Amount awarded Amount awarded by
by Tribunal this Court
Extra Rs. 50,000 Rs.50,000/-
nourishment,
travelling and
attendant Charges,
Disability, Pain and Rs.3,58,000/- Rs.1,00,000/-
suffering and (Wrongly awarded (excluding disability)
injuries under this head
instead of loss of
earnings)
Medical expenses Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/-
Artificial leg -- Rs.50,000/-
Loss of amenities -- Rs.30,000/-
Loss of future Rs.2,00,000/- Rs.10,92,000/-
earning/permanent
disability
Total Rs.6,38,000/- Rs.13,52,000/-
13. It is settled law that irrespective of the claim made by
the claimants, the Courts have to award just and reasonable
compensation, however, the claimants have to pay deficit court fee.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed, enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.6,38,000/-
to Rs.13,52,000/- (Rupees Thirteen Lakh and Fifty two 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
6 RRN,J
MACMA No.717 of 2015
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
14th day of February, 2023
BDR
