Telangana High Court
Kanchu Hemanya Shanmukapriya vs Suggala Vijayalaxmi on 31 January, 2023
Bench: M.G.Priyadarsini
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2808 of 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation
awarded in the award and decree, dated 07.02.2019 made in
M.V.O.P.No.1035 of 2014 on the file of the XI Additional Chief
Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal"),
the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal seeking
enhancement of the compensation.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the minor appellant
through her father, filed a petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for
the injuries sustained by her in a road accident that occurred
on 09.02.2014. According to the appellant, on 09.02.2014
while she was returning to her house at 3rd Incline of
Kothagudem Town, one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP 37 TC 3981,
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 the appellant, as a result of which, the
appellant sustained fracture to her nasal bone and right femur.
Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to
Mamata Hospital, Khammam and the father of the appellant
had incurred Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and she
also required another amount of Rs.50,000/- for removal of the
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
rod which was inserted to her right femur. It is further stated
that due to fracture of nasal bone, the face of the appellant was
disfigured and her right leg was shortened due to fracture of
right leg femur, therefore, she laid the claim against the
respondents, seeking compensation.
3. 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.1,37,000/- with interest
at 9% per annum. Challenging the quantum of compensation
awarded, 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. It is further submitted
that the Tribunal did not award any amount under the heads of
attendant charges, medical expenses, future medical expenses
and also loss of amenities in life and marriage prospects.
6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the
Insurance Company submits that the quantum of compensation
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
awarded by the Tribunal is based on evidence 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. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, at
the time of accident, the appellant was aged about 11 years. At
the tender age of 11 years, the face of the appellant was
disfigured due to fracture of nasal bone and her right leg was
shortened due to fracture of right femur. No amount can
compensate the loss sustained by the appellant at the very
tender age. As per the evidence of P.W.2, there is a limping in
the right leg and it may be 5 to 10% permanent disability and
such limping was due to shortening of leg by 1 cm. and such
shortening of leg may not get corrected in future. Further, the
evidence of P.W.3, neuro surgeon, shows that the appellant may
get headache and epilepsy (fits) due to fracture of nasal bone
and that the comprehensive deformity is at 10 to 15% and
there will be slur and stammering in the conversation.
Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of income for the
disability sustained by the appellant.
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
9. So far as the loss of amenities and loss of expectation of
life is concerned in Kavita v. Deepak and others1 the Apex
Court held that 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".
10. In the instant case, since the appellant has sustained
15% of the disability because of the shortening of her right leg
and there was stammering in conversation, this Court deems it
fit to award a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities
and loss of expectation of life. Further, the appellant has taken
(2012) 9 SCC 604
(2009) 6 SCC 1
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
treatment in Mamatha Hospital, Khammam, for a considerable
period. Thus, looking into the nature of injuries sustained by
the claimant, nature and period of treatment undergone by her
and the amount spent by her towards medical expenses,
transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment, this
Court feels that the appellant is entitled to the following amount
under various heads.
Sl. Name of Head Awarded by Awarded by
No. Tribunal this Court
Rs. Ps. Rs. Ps.
1.
Pain and suffering 20,000.00 20,000.00
2.
Future Medical -- 25,000.00
Expenses
3.
Transportation charges ` 5,000.00 10,000.00
4.
Extra nourishment 10,000.00 10,000.00
5.
Attendant charges -- 5,000.00
6.
Two fracture injuries -- 50,000.00
7.
Damages to Cloths 2,000.00 2,000.00
8.
Compensation for 1,00,000.00 1,00,000.00
shortening of leg
9.
Loss of amenities in life -- 1,00,000.00
i.e., marriage prospects
etc.
TOTAL 1,37,000.00 3,22,000.00
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the
compensation from Rs.1,37,000/- to Rs.3,22,000/-. 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. There shall be no
order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
31.01.2023
tsr
MGP, J
Macma_2808_2019
HONOURABLE JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A. No.2808 of 2019
DATE: -01-2023
