Syed Habeeb vs Komatireddy Bhaskar Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 889 Tel

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

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.279 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is preferred by the injured, questioning the

award and decree, dated 15.09.2016 passed in M.V.O.P.No.907

of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-

VIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (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(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by

him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19.08.2011. It

is stated that on the fateful day, while the claimant was

proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 25 F 20151 as pillion

rider, along with other person, from Narayanapur towards

Nizamabad, at about 4:30 a.m., the crime vehicle i.e., auto

bearing No.AP 25 W 5539, 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 the scooter

from opposite direction, as a result of which, the claimant

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

suffered fracture of both bones of right leg and injuries to other

parts of his body. Immediately, he was taken to Ashwini

Hospital, Nizamabad, and later shifted to Lazarus Hospital,

Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient. He spent

Rs.3,00,000/- towards nursing and nourishing. According to

the claimant, he was hale and healthy and aged 24 years as on

the date of accident and earning Rs.15,000/- per month by

working as bore-well mechanic, electrician and attending

agricultural works. Due to the said injuries, he sustained

permanent disability and lost his future earnings. Thus, he laid

the claim seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.

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

No.2 filed counter denying petition averments, disputing the

manner of accident, nature of injuries sustained by the

claimant, 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_279_2017

1. Whether the pleaded accident occurred resulting in injuries sustained by the petitioner, Syed Habeeb, due to rash and negligent driving of motor vehicle bearing No.AP 25 W 5539 by its driver?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation, if so to what quantum and from which of the respondents?

3. To what relief?

6. In order to prove the issues, PWs.1, 2 and 3 were

examined and Exs.A1 to A33 got marked on behalf of the

claimant. On behalf of respondent No. 2, no oral evidence was

adduced but Ex.B1 was marked with consent.

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.2,63,800/- towards compensation to the claimant along with

proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date

of filing the petition till the date of payment or 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.

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

9. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of medical

evidence i.e. the evidence of P.W. 3, member of medical board

and Ex.A.33, disability certificate, sufficiently established that

the claimant had sustained disability at 88% due to the injuries

suffered in the accident, the Tribunal has estimated the

disability at 30% thereby awarded meager amount towards loss

of income due to disability.

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, FIR & A.2, Charge

Sheet, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of auto bearing No.AP 25 W 5539.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

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 Ashwini Hospital, Nizamabad,

wherefrom he was taken to Lazarus Hospital, Hyderabad, where

he was treated as inpatient. The evidence of PW-3, who is the

member of Medical Board, coupled with Ex.A33, Disability

Certificate, discloses that the claimant suffered 88% permanent

disability due to impaired reach of right lower limb and post

traumatic sequel limbs. However, without there being any

acceptable reason, the Tribunal brushed aside the said evidence

and had taken the disability at 30%. In the circumstances of

the case and considering the evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.A.33,

this Court is inclined to fix the disability sustained by the

claimant at 40%.

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

claimant, he was aged about 24 years at the time of accident

and used to earn Rs.15,000/- per month by working as bore

well mechanic, electrician and on agriculture. But no evidence

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

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 2011, this Court is inclined to fix the

income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. As per the

records, the claimant was aged about 24 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.3,88,800/-

(Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 18 x 40/100). That apart, the claimant is

awarded Rs.20,000/- towards extra nourishment,

transportation, attendant charges and medical bills. That apart,

the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e., Rs.25,000/-

towards pain and sufferings and head injury, Rs.36,000/-

towards medical loss of earnings are not disturbed with. Thus,

in all the claimant is entitled to Rs.4,69,800/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.2,63,800/- to Rs.4,69,800/-. The enhanced amount shall

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

of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

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 22.02.2023 rev/gms

MGP, J Macma_279_2017

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

M.A.C.M.A. No.279 of 2017

DATE: 22.02.2023

rev/gms