M A Saleem vs Shaik Abdul Rahman Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 155 Tel

          HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.3091 of 2014

JUDGMENT:

Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by

the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII

Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad in O.P.

No.199 of 2009, dated 04-06-2010, the present appeal is filed by

the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation granted by

the Tribunal.

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

petitioner, on 17.11.2008 he was returning to Hyderabad in the

auto bearing No. AP 24 V 8395 and when the auto reached Raigiri

village at about 10-30 a.m., the driver of the auto drove it in a

rash and negligent manner without observing the opposite bus

bearing No. AP 28 Z 3549 of Warangal Depot and dashed the same

by overtaking another vehicle. Consequently the petitioner

sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was taken to

Government Hospital, Bhongir and from there he was shifted to

Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, where he was treated as

inpatient for 15 days and was operated on 20.11.2008 and rods

were inserted in his leg. He spent Rs.1,17,554/- towards medical

expenses. According to the petitioner, he was a computer operator

besides document writer and earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Due

to the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled

and lost his income. Thus, he is claiming compensation of

Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents 1 and 2, who are owner

and insurer of the auto jointly and severally.

3. Respondent No.1 set ex parte; Respondent No.2 filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and income of the

claimant and further contended that the claim is exorbitant and

sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

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

following issues:

1) Whether the accident took place on 17.11.2008 at about 10-30 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No. AP.24.V.8395 by its driver?

2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom?

3) To what relief?

5. In order to prove the issues, on behalf of the petitioner,

PWs.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. On

behalf of the respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no witnesses

were examined, however, Ex.B1 got marked.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.4,63,000/-

towards compensation along with interest at 7% per annum from

the date of petition till the date of realization to the appellant-

claimant against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and

severally.

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

the learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the

material available on record.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has

submitted that although the claimant, by way of evidence of

P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.11, established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained permanent disability due to the injuries

received by him in the accident, but the Tribunal has awarded

very meager amount under various heads.

9. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 2 sought to sustain the impugned award of the

Tribunal contending that considering the nature of injuries

sustained by the petitioner and the treatment taken by him, the

learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation and the

same needs no interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the manner of

accident. However, the Tribunal after evaluating the evidence of

PWs.1 and 3 coupled with the documentary evidence available on

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

driving of the driver of Auto bearing No.AP.24.V.8395. Now the

only dispute in the present appeal is with regard to the quantum

of compensation.

11. As per the evidence available on record, the evidence of the

claimant/PW-1 coupled with the documentary evidence shows

that he sustained grievous injuries in the alleged accident and

immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Bhongir and

from there he was shifted to Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad,

where he was treated as inpatient for 15 days and was operated

on 20.11.2008 and rods were inserted in his leg. He spent

Rs.1,17,554/- towards medical expenses. Further according to

the evidence of PW-4, Orthopedic Surgeon in Vijaya Health Care,

Secunderabad, PW-1 was admitted in their hospital on

18.11.2008 and was discharged on 24.11.2008 and that he has

sustained i) fracture of right humorous, ii) fracture of right femur,

iii) fracture of right tibia, iv) fracture of right ankle and v) crush

injury on right foot, which are grievous in nature and he was

operated on 20.11.2008 and plates were inserted in his right

femur and they have to be removed subsequently. He further

deposed that there is stiffness in the right knee besides deformity

on various parts. He assessed the disability of PW-1 at 60% which

is permanent in nature. PW-1 also filed Ex.A8 disability certificate

issued by the District Medical Board, which shows that the

disability is 100%. Considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 4

coupled with documentary evidence, the Tribunal awarded an

amount of Rs.10,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering and loss

of amenities, Rs.25,000/- for five grievous injuries, which are very

less. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries sustained by

PW-1 and the treatment taken by him, an amount of

Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded to PW-1 for five grievous injuries @

Rs.20,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.25,000/- is also

awarded to PW-1 towards pain and sufferance. Further the

tribunal rightly awarded an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- towards

medical bills and the same is not disturbed.

12. Coming to the disability, as stated above, PW-4 stated that

the petitioner has sustained 60% disability which is permanent in

nature. PW-1 filed the disability certificate issued by the District

Medical Board, which shows that the petitioner has sustained

100% disability. However, the tribunal had taken the disability

sustained by the petitioner at 50%, which appears to be very less.

Therefore, the disability sustained by the petitioner is fixed at 60%

as stated by the doctor who treated him. According to PW-1, he

was a computer operator and earning Rs.5,000/- per month.

PW.2 who is the employer of PW-1 stated that PW-1 used to get

Rs.6,000/- per month. However, the tribunal has taken the

income of PW-1 at Rs.36,000/- per annum i.e., Rs.3,000/- per

month, which is very less. Therefore, considering the avocation of

the petitioner as computer operator, his income can be taken at

Rs.5,000/- per month. As per the records, the claimant was aged

about 37 years at the time of accident. Then the appropriate

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

Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 would be "15". Thus,

the future loss of income due to 60% disability comes to Rs.5,000

x 12 x 15 x 60/100 =Rs.5,40,000/-, which the petitioner/

2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)

claimant is entitled towards loss of income. In total, the claimant

is entitled to Rs.8,05,000/-.

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

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from

Rs.4,63,000/- to Rs.8,05,000/-. The enhanced amount shall

carry interest at 6% 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 and on such payment of

court fee only, he is entitled to withdraw the compensation

amount without furnishing any security. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI,J 09.01.2023 pgp