P.Madhava Reddy vs P. Raji Reddy And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 887 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

                   M.A.C.M.A.No.1539 of 2008

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.903 of

2001, dated 29.01.2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,

Hyderabad.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed in the O.P.

3. The appellant is the claimant. The O.P. was filed by the

claimant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming

compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained

by him, in the accident which occurred on 31.03.2001 at 3.30 a.m.

The said accident occurred, while the claimant and villagers of

China Ravulapally engaged a Lorry bearing No.AP-02-T-9369, for

transporting vegetables to Gudimalkapur, Hyderabad and when the

said lorry reached Tokatta gate, the driver of the lorry drove it at a

high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, it turned

turtle and the claimant sustained head injury, fracture to left

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

occipital bone, left intra ventricular bleed, hariplegia and spasticity

caused. Immediately, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital

and from there to Sri Sairam Hospital. Basing on the complaint, a

case was registered against the driver of the lorry, for the offence

punishable under Section 337 of IPC in Cr.No.77 of 2001, on the

file of Moinabad Police Station.

4. It is the case of the claimant that he was aged 40 years at the

time of the accident and used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as an

agriculturist and milk vendor and that he incurred huge amounts

for his treatment, other expenses, also sustained permanent

disability and lost his earning capacity.

5. A detailed counter affidavit was filed by the

respondent/Insurance Company disputing the age, income,

occupation and also the expenditure incurred by the claimant.

Further, it was contended that there was no negligence on the part

of the driver of the Lorry.

6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary

evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.62,000/-.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal seeking

enhancement of compensation. So, the appreciation of evidence

would be with respect to the quantum alone.

8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

record.

9. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that

the Tribunal has erred in not considering the income of the

claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month and also did not consider the

disability of 60%, though it was assessed by the medical board and

therefore, prayed to consider the income and disability while

granting compensation and also to grant compensation under the

other notional heads.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd

respondent/Insurance Company contended that there is no error or

irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

with the same, and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal by

confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.

11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no

dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on

31.03.2001. It is specifically pleaded by the claimant before the

Tribunal that he was aged 40 years as on the date of the accident,

though it is mentioned as 38 years in Ex.A-4, i.e., the disability

certificate. But the Tribunal has considered the age of the claimant

as 40 years basing on Ex.A-2/Charge sheet and awarded a

lumpsum amount of Rs.50,000/- under the head "disability". The

Tribunal has considered the income of the deceased as Rs.2,000/-

p.m. though it is pleaded by the claimant that he was earning

Rs.3,000/- p.m. Admittedly, there is no documentary evidence on

record to prove the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- p.m.

12. The evidence of P.W.3/Dr. K.Vishnu Prasad clearly disclose

that the claimant has sustained serious head injury and the injuries

mentioned in the claim petition are corroborated with the evidence

of P.W.3. But, the Tribunal did not consider Ex.A-4/disability

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

certificate in its true spirit, while granting compensation. No

reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for discarding Ex.A-4.

13. The Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant

under the following heads:-

1.    Permanent disability                    Rs.50,000/-
2.    Medical expenses                        Rs.2,972/-
3.    Pain and suffering                      Rs.5,000/-
4.    Loss of earnings                        Rs.4,000/-
5.    Transport                               Rs.1,000/-
6.    Extra-nourishment                       Rs.1,000/-
      TOTAL                                   Rs.63,972/-

14. Considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in a catena of judgments, this Court is of the considered view

that the claimant is entitled for more compensation than awarded

by the Tribunal. As there is no documentary evidence as to the

income of the deceased, the Tribunal has rightly considered the

income of the claimant as Rs.2,000/- p.m. But the Tribunal ought

not to have granted lumpsum amount towards permanent disability

and it ought to have followed the multiplier method for just and

fair compensation. Taking the income of the claimant as

Rs.2,000/-p.m., if 25% future prospects is added in terms of the

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance

Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & others1, it would come to Rs.2,500/-

(Rs.2,000 + Rs.500). Further, as per the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation & another2, the multiplier applicable is '15' for the

age group of 35 to 40 years. As per Ex.A-4 and the oral evidence

of P.W.3/Doctor, the claimant sustained 60% of disability.

Therefore, the claimant/injured is entitled for an amount of

Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss of future income (Rs.2,500 X 12 X 15

X 60/100). The claimant is also entitled for an amount of

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering as he sustained serious

injuries and fractures as per Ex.A-3/discharge card. The learned

counsel for claimant contended that the claimant incurred

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, but the Tribunal has only

granted Rs.2,972/- and no reasons are assigned by the Tribunal for

granting Rs.2,972/- alone. Therefore, the claimant is entitled for

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, as per Ex.A-5. As per the

evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the claimant suffered loss of earnings for

2017 ACJ 2700

(2009) 6 SCC 121

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

a period of two months due to the injuries sustained by him in the

accident. Therefore, he is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,000/-,

which was already granted by the Tribunal. Further, the claimant

is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards transportation, attendant

charges and extra-nourishment.

15. Thus, the claimant is entitled for compensation as under:

1.    Loss of income                         Rs.2,70,000/-
2.    Medical expenses                       Rs.10,000/-
3.    Pain and suffering                     Rs.25,000/-
4.    Loss of earnings for two months        Rs.4,000/-
5.    Transport,    extra-nourishment      & Rs.10,000/-
      attendant charges
      TOTAL                                    Rs.3,19,000/-

16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total

compensation of Rs.3,19,000/- to the claimant with costs and

interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till

the date of realization, jointly and severally payable by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 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, as the accident occurred in the year 2001,

on payment of deficit Court fee.

GAC, J MACMA.No.1539 of 2008

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 22.02.2023 dv