D Narsimhulu, Hyd vs Haleemuddin, Lathur Dist Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 860 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.878 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the injured, questioning the

award and decree, dated 30.03.2016 passed in

M.V.O.P.No.1865 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court

at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

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

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.04.2013. It

is stated that on 21.04.2013, while the claimant was proceeding

on a motorcycle, along with other two persons, at about 11:50

p.m., when they reached near Sai Ram Traders, which is located

on Medak to Narsapur Road, the crime vehicle i.e., DCM bearing

No.MH 24 F 9262, owned by respondent No. 1 and insured with

respondent No. 2, being driven by its driver in a rash and

negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the motorcycle,

as a result of which, the claimant suffered fracture of left

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

maxilla, Bilateral nasal bone, nasal septum, left zygoma, lateral

wall of left orbit, frontal bone involving left frontal sinus and

roof of left orbit, anterior wall of lateral wall of bilateral

maxillary antrum and left lamina papyarcea. Immediately, he

was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, for treatment

where he was treated as inpatient from 22.04.2013 to

05.10.2013. He was operated on 05.05.2013 for closed fracture

of shaft of right femur. ORIF with K-NAILING was done and he

was also attended by Plastic Surgeon. He spent Rs.1,10,000/-

towards medical expenses. According to the claimant, he was

working as labour and earning Rs.8,000/- per month. Due to

the injuries sustained by him, he lost his income. Thus, he laid

the claim seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

4. While respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondent

No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of

injuries sustained by the claimant, age, avocation and income of

the claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant

and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the

following issues:

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

1. Whether the claimant sustained injuries in the accident on 21.04.2013 due to rash and negligent driving of the DCM van bearing No.MH 24 F 9262?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation. If so, from whom?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1 and 2 were examined

and Exs.A1 to A13 got marked on behalf of the claimant. On

behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2, no witnesses were examined

and no documents were marked.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.3,20,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along

with costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

filing the petition till realization against the respondents jointly

and severally.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and

the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 2-

Insurance Company. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

evidence i.e. the evidence of P.W. 2, doctor and Ex.A.10,

disability certificate, sufficiently established that the claimant

had sustained disability at 40% due to the injuries suffered in

the accident, the Tribunal has estimated the disability at 25%

thereby awarded meager amount towards loss of income due to

disability. Further, though P.W.2 has estimated the future

medical expenditure at Rs.1,00,000/-, the tribunal has awarded

only Rs.30,000/ which is meager and need to be enhanced

reasonably.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent-Insurance Company sought

to sustain the impugned award of the Tribunal contending that

considering the manner of accident and the nature of injuries

sustained by the claimant, the learned Tribunal has awarded

reasonable compensation and the same needs no interference

by this Court.

11. As regards the manner of accident, the Tribunal after

evaluating the evidence of PW. 1, coupled with the documentary

evidence available on record i.e., Exs.A.1 & A.2, held that the

accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver

of DCM bearing No.MH 24 F 9262. Therefore, this Court is not

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

inclined to interfere with the said findings of the Tribunal which

are based on appreciation of evidence in proper perspective.

Thus, the only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to

the quantum of compensation.

12. As per the medical evidence available on record, the

claimant sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident and

immediately he was taken to Gandhi Hospital, where he was

treated as inpatient. The evidence of PW-2, who is the Doctor,

coupled with Ex.A10, Disability Certificate, discloses that the

claimant suffered 40% permanent disability due to shortening of

right lower limb, mal-union of shaft of right femur and stiffness

right knee. Therefore, this Court is inclined to accept the

disability sustained by the claimant at 40%.

13. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the

claimant, he was aged about 20 years at the time of accident

and used to earn Rs.8,000/- per month by working as labour.

But no evidence is produced, either oral or documentary, to

prove his income. However, considering the avocation of the

claimant and as the accident is of the year 2013, this Court is

inclined to fix the income of the claimant as Rs.6,000/- per

month. As per the records, the claimant was aged about 20

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

years at the time of accident. Therefore, the appropriate

multiplier in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is "18". Thus, the

future loss of income due to 40% disability comes to

Rs.5,18,400/- (Rs.6,000/- x 12 x 18 x 40/100). As seen from

Ex.A.9, the claimant had spent Rs.16,000/- towards medical

expenses. However, the tribunal has not awarded any amount

under this head. Hence, considering Ex.A.9, this Court is

inclined to award a sum of Rs.16,000/- towards medicines &

treatment. That apart, in the light of evidence of P.W.2, the

claimant is awarded Rs.40,000/- towards future medical

expenses. The amounts of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and

sufferings and Rs.25,000/- towards expectation of life and

amenities awarded by the tribunal are not disturbed. However,

he is awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of attendant,

transport charges and extra nourishment. Thus, in all, the

claimant is entitled to Rs.6,49,400/- towards just

compensation. As regards the rate of interest is concerned, the

claimants are entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum on the

compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the date of petition

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

till realization, as per the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh

and others v. Rajbir Singh and others2.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.3,20,000/- to Rs.6,49,400/-. The enhanced amount shall

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

of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally. 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. On such deposit of

Court fee, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. No

costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI 21.02.2023 gms

2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35

MGP, J Macma_878_2017

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.878 of 2017

DATE: 21.02.2023

gms