A Kishore vs P.Chandra Shekar Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 486 Tel

     HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.568 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in the award and decree, dated

08.01.2019 made in M.V.O.P.No.2220 of 2013 on the file of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the

Tribunal"), the appellant/claimant preferred the present

appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.

2. The facts, in issue, are as under:

The appellant filed a petition under Section 166 of

the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of

Rs.6,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident that occurred on 18.06.2013. According to the

appellant, on 18.06.2013 while the appellant was

proceeding on his friend's Scooter No.AIM 7366 as pillion

rider and when they reached near Vijetha Super Market,

one Water Tanker bearing No.AP 04 U 6091, 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 scooter, as a result of which, the appellant

sustained fracture to his right thigh, head injury and blunt

injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident,

the appellant was shifted to Remedy Hospital, Kukatpally

for treatment where he was treated as inpatient surgery

was performed by inserting steel rods. It is further stated

that due to injuries he was completely bed ridden and lost

his income and also lost amenities and social status as he

suffered permanent disability, therefore, he laid the claim

against the respondents, seeking compensation.

3. After considering the claim and the counters filed by

respondents, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral

and documentary, the learned Tribunal has partly allowed

the O.P. awarding compensation of Rs.4,76,970/- with

interest at 7.5% per annum. Challenging the said

quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed by

the appellant/claimant.

4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant mainly submits

that the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal is on lower side and seeks enhancement of the

same as he suffered 60% permanent disability, the

Tribunal has taken the disability at 20%. Therefore,

prayed to enhance the compensation duly taking into

consideration the disability at 60%. It is further

contended that the appellant is aged about 19 years and

due to the disability, he lost his amenities and social

status, therefore, prayed to award reasonable amount for

the loss sustained by him.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company submits that the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is based on

evidence available on record and the same needs no

interference.

7. 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.

8. The short question that arises for consideration is

"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and equitable"?

9. In order to establish his case, the appellant 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.A6,

disability certificate, issued by P.W.2. P.W.2, the doctor

who treated the claimant, had deposed in his evidence that

the appellant was suffering with permanent disability at

20% and loss of earning capacity is around 60%. As per

Ex.A6 and the evidence of P.W.2, the appellant has

suffered with 20% permanent partial disability and

therefore, the Tribunal has rightly taken the disability at

20% while calculating the loss of earnings, which needs no

interference. Further, the other amounts awarded by the

Tribunal under the heads of medical expenses, loss of

earnings during the period of treatment, future medical

expenses and pain and suffering, transportation and extra

nourishment need no interference as they are just and

reasonable.

10. In Kavita v. Deepak and others1, the Apex Court

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

disabled either permanently or temporarily, adequate

(2012) 9 SCC 604

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".

11. In the instant case, the appellant was about 19 years

at the time of the accident and the record reveals that he

had suffered with 20% permanent disability as there was

shortening of right leg. Since the right leg of the appellant

was shortened and he was unmarried, this Court deems it

fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of

amenities and loss of expectation of life i.e., loss of

(2009) 6 SCC 1

marriage prospects and social status. Thus, in all the

claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,76,970/- as

compensation.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.4,76,970/- to Rs. 5,76,970/- . The

enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the

date of petition 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. There shall be

no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

31.01.2023 tsr

HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A. No.568 of 2019

DATE: -01-2023