THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3167 of 2014
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of
compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated
19.03.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.219 of 2011 on the file
of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII
Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court,
Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"), the appellant/
claimant preferred the present appeal seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-
for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle
accident that took place on 08.09.2008. It is stated that on
08.09.2008 at about 8:30 a.m., the claimant, along with
Md.Sameer Pasha and Surya Kumar, was travelling in
Accent Car bearing No.AP 10 AH 5400, being driven by the 2 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
claimant and when they reached in the village outskirts of
Aitipamula on National Highway No.9, one Car bearing
No.AP 20 S 3569, owned by respondent No.1 and insured
with respondent No.2, being driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner came in opposite direction and
dashed the Car of the claimant, as a result of which, the
claimant and other inmates of the Car, sustained injuries.
The claimant sustained fracture of left femur, grievous
injury to left wrist, abrasion over the right leg knee and
other injuries all over the body. Immediately after the
accident, the claimant was admitted in Kamineni Hospital,
Narketparlly and after first aid, he was shifted to Niveditha
Orthopedic Centre, Hyderabad, where he took treatment as
inpatient from 08.09.2008 to 14.09.2008 and an operation
was conducted under ORIF and bone grafting was also
done. Therefore, the claimant laid the claim-petition
against the respondents seeking compensation under
different heads.
3
MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by
respondent No.2, and on evaluation of the evidence, both
oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly
allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of
Rs.1,70,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum.
Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded, the
present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on
lower side. It is further submitted that the Tribunal failed
to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and also the disability
certificate, Ex.A15, while awarding compensation of
Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earnings. Therefore, prayed to
enhance the compensation duly taking into consideration
the disability at 40% sustained by the claimant, as stated
by P.W.2.
4
MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company submits that the quantum of
compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on
evidence and the same needs no interference.
8. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner
in which the accident took place has become final as the
same is not challenged either by the owner or insurer of
the vehicle.
9. The short question that arises for consideration is
"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just
and equitable"?
10. In order to establish his case, the claimant examined
himself as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as
P.W.2. In support of the injuries as well as the disability
sustained by him, the appellant got marked Ex.A15,
disability certificate, issued by P.W.2. P.W.2, the doctor
who treated the claimant, had deposed in his evidence that
the claimant cannot sit and squat for a long distance and 5 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
he cannot do heavy work and was suffering with 40%
partial and permanent disability. As seen from Ex.A5, the
claimant was unable to work as there is deformity of left
thigh. As the petitioner is a driver and sustained grievous
injuries to his leg, the functional disability sustained by the
appellant is fixed at 40%, as stated by the doctor, which is
supported by the disability certificate. In view of nature of
disability sustained, the claimant is entitled to loss of
earnings due to disability.
11. As regard the income of the claimant, considering
Ex.A13, appointment order issued by Hyderabad Castings
Limited, this Court is inclined to fix the monthly income f
the claimant at Rs.8,350/-. As the age of the claimant at
the time of accident was 25 years, the appropriate
multiplier in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma Vs.
Delhi Transport Corporation1, is '18'. Therefore, adopting
the said multiplier the loss of earnings on account of the
disability comes to Rs.8,350/- x 12 x 18 x 40/100 =
1 2009 ACJ 1298 6 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
Rs.7,21,440/-. Further, the amount of Rs.50,000/-
awarded by the tribunal for the injuries sustained by the
claimant; Rs.30,000/- towards extra nourishment,
travelling and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards
paid and suffering are not interfered with. Thus, in all the
claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.8,11,440/- as
compensation.
12. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the Insurance
company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of
Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of
compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the
claim made which is impermissible under law.
13. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court in
Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another2 and
Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh3, the claimant is entitled
2 (2011) 10 SCC 756 3 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) 7 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
to get just compensation even if it is more than the amount
what was claimed by the claimant.
14. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed by
enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.1,70,000/- to Rs.8,11,440/-. The
enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the
date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization. The 2nd
respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within
two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire compensation amount. However, the
appellant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the
enhanced amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI 04.01.2023 Tsr 8 MGP, J Macma_3167_2014
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No. 3167 of 2014
DATE:04-01-2023
