Telangana High Court
Smt. Gagloth Gadi Bai vs V. Rambabu And Another on 4 January, 2023
Bench: G.Anupama Chakravarthy
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
M.A.C.M.A.No.482 of 2008
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is arising out of the orders in O.P.No.842 of
2004, dated 18.12.2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad
2. For the sake of convenience, 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.8,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained
by the claimant in the accident, which occurred on 19.11.2003.
The said accident occurred, while the claimant was walking
towards her fields and when she reached at Anthapur Thanda, one
tractor bearing No.AP-25-E-6422 driven by its driver in a rash and
negligent manner, dashed and ran over both the legs of the
claimant and as a result, she sustained multiple fractures to both
her legs, deformity and dislocation of right hip, fracture to ribs and
other grievous injuries to various parts of her body.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
4. Basing on the complaint of the claimant, a case was
registered against the driver of the tractor in Crime No.137 of 2003
for the offence punishable under Section 337 of IPC on the file of
Varni Police Station. The claimant incurred huge amounts for her
medical treatment for other expenses also sustained permanent
disability and lost her earning capacity. At the time of accident,
the claimant was cultivating the lands doing vegetable and milk
business and earned Rs.10,000/- to 12,000/- per month and was
aged about 42 years.
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 tractor.
6. The Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence on record, granted a compensation of Rs.1,80,428/-.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
7. Being aggrieved as to the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal for 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.10,000/- per month and also did not considered the
disability and prayed to consider the income and disability while
granting compensation and also to grant compensation under other
notional heads and prayed to allow the appeal.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondent/Insurance Company contended that there is no error or
irregularity in the orders passed by the Tribunal so as to interfere
with the same and therefore, prayed to dismiss the Appeal
confirming the judgment of the Tribunal.
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
11. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, there is no
dispute as to the manner of the accident which occurred on
19.11.2003. Admittedly, the age of the claimant as on the date of
the accident was 42 years as per Exs.A-3, A-4 and A-7 i.e., wound
certificate, Medico Legal Case register and Medical certificate
issued by the Apollo hospital respectively.
12. In the case of Ramachandrappa v. Royal Sundaram
Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd1., their lordships have taken the
income of the deceased/coolie, as Rs.4,500/- per month. Though, it
is contended that the claimant was a vegetable vendor and doing
milk business as on the date of the accident, there was no
documentary evidence on record to prove the occupation of the
claimant as a business woman. Further, the Tribunal did not
considered the income of the claimant and granted compensation in
lumpsum. Considering the above said proposition, the income of
the claimant is fixed as Rs.4,500/- per month for the accident
which occurred in the year 2003.
(2011) 13 SCC 236
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
13. As per the oral evidence of P.W.2 i.e the Doctor and
documentary evidence i.e. Ex.A-10/Disability certificate the
claimant sustained 40% of permanent disability which can be taken
into consideration while calculating the loss of earnings.
14. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal has awarded
compensation to the claimant under the following heads:-
1. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
2. Disability Rs.50,000/-
3. Future medical expenses Rs.20,000/-
4. Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8 Rs.42,428/-
5. Loss of earning for 6 months Rs.18,000/-
15. As per the Apex Court judgment in National Insurance
Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi2, the claimant is entitled for
25% of future prospects as she was aged above 40 years. If 25% of
future prospects is added, it would come to Rs.5,625/-
(Rs.4,500+1125). As stated supra, the disability of the claimant is
40%. As per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Smt.Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation & another3,
the multiplier applicable is '14' for the age group of 40 to 45 years.
2017 ACJ 2700
(2009) 6 SCC 121
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
Therefore, the loss of earnings of the injured/claimant would be
Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.5625 X 12 X 14 X 40/100). Apart from that, the
claimant is also entitled for compensation under the heads of pain
and suffering, transportation, medical expenses and attendant
charges, as she sustained grievous injuries and also underwent
treatment in the hospital for quite some time, as per the evidence of
PWs-1 and 2.
Thus, the claimant is entitled to the compensation under the
following heads;
1. Loss of dependency Rs.3,78,000/-
2. Pain and suffering Rs.50,000/-
3. Transportation Rs.20,000/-
4. Medical expenses as per Ex.A-8 Rs.42,428/-
5. Attendant charges Rs.20,000/-
TOTAL Rs.5,10,428 /-
16. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, granting a total
compensation of Rs.5,10,428/- 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
GAC, J
MACMA.No.482 of 2008
amount of compensation, as the accident occurred in the year 2003.
She is entitled for the said amount only on payment of deficit Court
fee.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed.
________________________________
G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Date: 04.01.2023
dv
