Amancha Srinivas vs M.Vinod Kumar Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 893 Tel

      THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1845 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award and

decree dated 03.01.2014 made in M.V.O.P.No.775 of 2010 on

the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-

Principal District Judge, Warangal (for short "the Tribunal").

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

referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. Appellant is the petitioner in the main O.P. According to

the petitioner, on 15.07.2007 at 5.20 pm, he was proceeding as

passenger in Auto bearing No.AP 36V 5776 from Hanamkonda

to Hasanparthy and when the said Auto reached near old

Mandakini Bar, Naminagar, Hanamkonda, it turned turtle since

the driver of the said auto lost control over it as he drove the

said auto in rash and negligent manner with high speed. As a

result, he sustained severe injuries, including a fracture at

pelvis. Immediately, he was shifted to M.G.M.Hospital,

Warangal, where he was treated as inpatient from 15.07.2007 to

28.07.2007. Later, he underwent surgery in NIMS Hospital,

Hyderabad, on 25.01.2008 and was discharged on 31.01.2008.

Further, he underwent treatment for the injuries in different

hospitals in between 15.07.2007 to 15.04.2008. According to

the petitioner, he was auto driver and earning Rs.4,000/- per MGP, J 2 Macma_1845_2014

month. Due to the said injury, he became permanently disabled

and lost his income. Therefore, he laid the claim for

Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the injury sustained by

him against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, who

are owner and the insurer of the offending vehicle.

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

No.2 filed counter stating that no such accident occurred and

the petitioner has not submitted any record to show his age and

earning capacity. It is further contended that the compensation

claimed by the petitioner is excessive and therefore, prays to

dismiss the petition.

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

following issues:

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, for causing injuries to him in a motor vehicular accident on 15.07.2007 at about 05.20 hours near old Mandakini Bar, Naimnagar, due to rash and negligent with high speed driving of auto bearing No.AP 36V 5776, by its driver?

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

Exs.A1 to A8 got marked on behalf of the petitioner. On behalf

of respondent No.2, no witnesses were examined and no

document was marked.

                                                                       MGP, J
                                     3                       Macma_1845_2014

7. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of

Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant along

with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from

the date of 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. Perused the material available on record.

9. The learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the

tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of the doctor, PW.2,

who deposed that the claimant is incapable to lead marital life

and became permanent disability. In view of the said evidence,

the compensation awarded by the tribunal is very meager and

needs enhancement.

10. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No.2-Insurance Company sought to sustain the

impugned award of the Tribunal contending that considering

the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned

Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation of

Rs.2,00,000/- and the same needs no interference by this

Court.

                                                                      MGP, J
                                    4                       Macma_1845_2014

11. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to 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 and A.2, copy of FIR and Charge Sheet, categorically

held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent

driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP 36 V 5776.

Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the

Tribunal in holding that the accident occurred due to the rash

and negligent driving of the driver of the said auto.

12. Coming to the quantum of compensation, in order to

establish his case, the appellant examined himself as PW.1 and

the Doctor in NIMS, who treated him, as P.W.2. P.W.2 in his

evidence has categorically stated that the claimant was

admitted in his hospital on 16.01.2008 and suffered rupture of

urethra with pelvic fracture. On 25.01.2008, transperineal

urethroplasty was conducted and he was discharged on

31.01.2008, with supra pubic catheter and perurathral

catheter. Considering Exs.A3 to A8, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings during treatment period;

Rs.25,000/- towards loss of future earnings; Rs.5,000/-

towards transport charges; Rs.30,000/- towards extra

nourishment and medical bills; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and

suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards injuries. This Court is of the MGP, J 5 Macma_1845_2014

view that the said amounts awarded by the tribunal are just

and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court.

Insofar as loss of amenities and loss of expectation of life is

concerned in Kavita v. Deepak and others1 the Apex Court

held that in respect of victims of accident, who are disabled

either permanently or temporarily, adequate compensation

should be awarded not only for the physical injury and

treatment but also for the loss of earning and inability to lead a

normal life and enjoy amenities, which one would have enjoyed

had it not been for the disability. The Supreme Court further

held that the amount awarded under the head of loss of

earning capacity is distinct and does not overlap with amount

awarded for pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life and

medical expenses. Relying upon the decision of Nizam's

Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S.Dhananka2,

the Apex Court also held that "assuming the claimant's life

expectancy to be 55 years, we deem it appropriate to award a

sum of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities and

loss of expectation of life".

13. In the instant case, since the evidence of P.W.2 discloses

that the appellant was suffering with erectile dysfunction and

that there is possibility of suffering impotency, due to the pelvic

(2012) 9 SCC 604

(2009) 6 SCC 1 MGP, J 6 Macma_1845_2014

fracture sustained in the accident, this Court deems it fit to

award a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards loss of amenities and

loss of expectation of life. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled to

Rs.3,50,000/- towards compensation.

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

enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- to

Rs.3,50,000/-. The awarded amount shall carry interest at

7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization,

payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Time

to deposit the amount is one month from the date of receipt of a

copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to

withdraw the amount without furnishing any security. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI .02.2023 Gms/Tsr MGP, J 7 Macma_1845_2014

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.No.1845 of 2014

02..2023

gms/tsr