United India Ins Co Ltd., ... vs K Raghupathi Reddy, Nizamabad ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1040 Tel

 HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
                     AND
  HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

           M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2567 and 2645 of 2015

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per Smt. Justice M.G.Priyadarsini)

        These two appeals are being disposed of by this

common judgment since M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of 2015 filed

by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.M.A.No.2645 of

2015 filed by petitioner challenging the quantum of

compensation, are directed against the very same order

and decree, dated 22.06.2015 made in O.P.No.452 of 2011

on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII

Additional District Judge), Nizamabad (for short "the

Tribunal").


2.      For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties

will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.


3.      Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a

claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act

claiming compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- for the injuries

sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on

15.11.2010.      According to the petitioner, on 15.11.2010

while    he,   along   with   his   friends,   N.Bhumesh   and
                               2


G.Srinivas, was proceeding in Maruti Car bearing No.AP 25

L 996 to get diesel from petrol bunk at Bibipoor Thanda

and when they reached the outskirts of Thirmanpally

Village at about 11:15 p.m., one Harvester bearing No.AP

25 Q 9712, 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 Maruti Car.

As a result, the petitioner sustained fracture to his left

shaft femur, comminuted fracture of both patella, fistula

and fracture of left radius. Immediately after the accident,

the petitioner was shifted to Amrutha Laxmi Hospital,

Nizamabad and thereafter he was shifted to Krishna

Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad, where he took

treatment as inpatient from 15.11.2010 to 04.12.2010 and

during the course of treatment, he underwent surgeries for

fixation of implants and he spent huge amount of

Rs.15,00,000/- towards treatment. It is the further case

of the petitioner that prior to the accident, he was hale and

healthy, aged about 29 years, earning Rs.30,000/- per

month as he was working as Technician in Dubai and due

to the fractures sustained by him in the accident, he is

unable to work and lost his earnings and also lost

amenities and social status as he suffered permanent

disability. Therefore, he laid the claim against the

respondents seeking compensation.

4. 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. and awarded compensation of Rs.17,70,000/- with

interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till its

realisation. Challenging the same, the present appeals

came to be filed by the Insurance Company and the

petitioner respectively.

5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

Standing Counsel for the insurance company. Perused the

material available on record.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner (appellant in

MACMA No. 2645 of 2015) 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 though P.W.2, the doctor who

treated the petitioner, categorically stated that there is

reduction of movements of the left hip and knee and right

knee of the petitioner and therefore, he is unable to

perform his day-to-day activities like running, squatting or

any hard work and also assessed the disability at 55%, the

Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of P.W.2 and also

the disability sustained by the petitioner and erroneously

failed to award any amount under the head of loss of future

earnings. Therefore, the learned counsel prayed to

enhance the compensation duly taking into consideration

the disability at 55% as stated by P.W.2. It is further

contended that the petitioner is aged about 29 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.

7. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the

Insurance Company (appellant in MACMA No. 2567 of

2015) submits that the Tribunal awarded adequate amount

of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is

further submitted that without there being any supporting

documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded

Rs.11,50,000/- towards medical expenses, extra

nourishment, attendant charges and transportation and

therefore, prayed to reduce the same.

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 and the challenge in both these appeals is only with

regard to the quantum of compensation.

9. As regards the quantum of compensation, in order to

establish his case, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1

and the Doctors, who treated him, as P.Ws.2 and 3. As per

Ex.A6, injury certificate, the petitioner had sustained

closed segmental fracture of shaft right femur, supra

condyler with intercondyler fracture of left femur, closed

fracture of left distal radius, closed comminuted fracture of

both patella. P.W.2, the doctor, deposed that the petitioner

underwent five surgeries and he has got reduction of

movement in his left hip and knee and right knee and he is

unable to perform his day-to-day activities like running

squatting or any hard work and he requires future

surgeries for the removal of implant and he is likely to

develop arthritis and P.W.2 has assessed the disability at

55%. Further, P.W.3, Gastroenterologist, has stated in his

evidence that the esophageal stent was removed and

oesophgeocotomy was done and because of loss of an

organ/esophagus and reduction of size of stomach, the

petitioner is likely to have the problems of rapid

satisfaction after eating a small quantity of food and rapid

emptying of partly undigested food into the intestine and

consequent under=nutrition and one of the consequence of

rerouting of stomach is reflux of intestinal and gastric

content. Considering the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, the

nature of fractures/injuries sustained by the petitioner as

reflected in Ex.A.6 and nature of treatment undergone by

him, this Court is of the view that the functional disability

sustained by the petitioner can be fixed at 50%. In view of

nature of disability sustained, the petitioner is entitled to

loss of earnings due to disability.

10. As regards the income of the petitioner, though the

petitioner has claimed that he used to earn Rs.30,000/-

per month as technician in Dubai, the Tribunal has fixed

his income at Rs.10,000/- per month on the ground that

the petitioner failed to produce satisfactory evidence to

show that he was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.

However, considering the fact that the petitioner is having

technical skills and taking into consideration the work

place of the petitioner, the Tribunal has rightly fixed the

monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.10,000/- per

month. As the age of the petitioner at the time of accident

was 29 years, the appropriate multiplier in view of the

judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation1, is '17'. Therefore, adopting the said

multiplier, the loss of earnings on account of the disability

comes to Rs.10,000 x 12 x 17 x 50/100 = Rs.10,20,000/-.

Further, the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e.,

Rs.1,00,000/- under the head of pain and suffering;

Rs.11,50,000/- towards medical expenses, transport, extra

nourishment, attendant charges etc.; Rs.1,20,000/-

towards loss of earning during the treatment period; and

Rs.4,00,000/- for future medical and other expenses need

no interference by this Court as the same were awarded by

the Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence

brought on record. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to

a sum of Rs.27,90,000/- as compensation.

1 2009 ACJ 1298

11. In the result, while dismissing M.A.C.M.A.No.2567 of

2015 filed by the Insurance Company, M.A.C.M.A.No.2645

of 2015 filed by the petitioner stands allowed in part by

enhancing the quantum of compensation awarded by the

Tribunal from Rs.17,70,000/- to Rs.27,90,000/- to be paid

by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The

enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum

from the date of filing of the O.P. till the date of realization.

Time to deposit the compensation is two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,

the petitioner is permitted to withdraw entire compensation

amount without furnishing any security. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ DR. CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J

_______________________ M.G.PRIYADARSINI, J 02.03.2023 Tsr

HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA AND HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2567 and 2645 of 2015

DATE: 02-03-2023