G Krishnaiah, Hyderabad vs Yerkampally Raji Reddy, ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1059 Tel

      THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

                  M.A.C.M.A. No.384 of 2015

JUDGMENT:

Being not satisfied with the quantum of

compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated

11.02.2014, passed in M.V.O.P.No.2182 of 2010 on the file

of the Chairman, 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.9,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road

accident that occurred on 3.4.2010. According to the

appellant, on 3.4.2010 at about 4-00 p.m. while he was

traveling in auto bearing No.AP 22 X 4553 from

Khillaghanapuram to Appareddypalli as passenger and

when the auto reached near Appareddypalli turning, the

auto turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the

driver of the auto resulting the petitioner sustained left and

right pelvic fractures and pubic rami fracture and blunt

injuries all over the body. Immediately he was shifted to

Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar for treatment by his

friends and from there he was shifted to Osmania General

Hospital, Hyderabad, for better treatment. Therefore, he

claimed compensation against the respondents, who are

the owner and insurer of the offending auto jointly and

severally.

3. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent

No.2 filed counter disputing the manner of accident, nature

of injuries sustained by the petitioner, age, avocation and

income of the petitioner. It is further contended that the

compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive.

Therefore, prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Respondent No.2 in its additional counter contended

that the driver of the offending auto was not holding valid

driving license at the time of accident.

5. 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.2,65,200/- with proportionate costs and interest at

7.5% per annum from the date of presentation of petition

till the date of deposit or realization, whichever is earlier.

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

Standing Counsel for respondent No.2.

7. 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. He further submits that the Tribunal ought to have

consider the partial permanent disability of 30% and loss

of earning capacity of 100% as stated by the doctor i.e.

PW.2 who treated the appellant but the Tribunal

erroneously considered 30% only.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. The short question that arises for consideration is

"whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just

and equitable"?

11. In order to establish his case, the appellant examined

himself as PW.1. According to the petitioner, after the

accident, he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital,

Hyderabad and took treatment as inpatient from 4.4.2010

to 29.5.2010 i.e. 55 days and also took treatment at Sai

Specialty Clinic, Secunderabad with Dr.V.K.V. Prasad as

outpatient. In support of the injuries as well as the

disability sustained by him, the appellant got marked

Exs.A3 to A10 and examined the Doctor, who treated him

as P.W.2. As per the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the

documentary evidence, the claimant has sustained fracture

of right pelvis, fracture of left pelvis (rupture of urethra).

PW-2 Dr.V.K.V. Prasad deposed that on 18.5.2011 the

claimant went to his clinic with a complaint of inability to

stand or lift weights and polyuria. He treated the patient

with physiotherapy and medication and after examining

him clinically, radiologically and went through his old

medical records, he issued Ex.A7 disability certificate

stating that he sustained permanent partial and functional

disability is around 30% and the loss of earning capacity is

100%, as he cannot work as labourer. He advised the

claimant to carry a hand stick for support while walking.

He cannot sit, squat, walk, stand or bend normally and

cannot carry weights.

12. Insofar as the amount awarded towards

compensation under the head of loss of future income, the

main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is

that though P.W.2 the Doctor stated that the claimant has

sustained 30% of the permanent partial disability and loss

of earning capacity at 100%, the Tribunal has taken 30%

disability, which appears to be very less. Therefore,

considering the nature of injuries sustained by the

petitioner and the functional disability sustained by him,

this Court is inclined to fix the functional disability at 50%.

13. According to the petitioner, he is a labour by

profession and used to earn Rs.4,500/- per month.

Therefore, the tribunal has rightly taken the income of the

petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month. The petitioner was

aged 54 years at the time of accident. In view of the

judgment of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation1, the suitable multiplier to be adopted for

calculating the loss of earnings would be '11'. Therefore,

the loss of earnings on account of the disability would be

Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 11 x 50/100 = Rs.2,97,000/-.

14. Further considering the injuries sustained by the

petitioner, the tribunal rightly awarded an amount of

Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earnings during the period of

treatment for about six months, Rs.15,000/- towards

medical bills, Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and

Rs.15,000/- towards loss of amenities and shock and as

such, the same are not disturbed. The tribunal also

awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transport

charges, which is very less and as such, it is enhanced to

Rs.20,000/- towards transport and attendant charges.

Further an amount of Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the

petitioner for the injuries received by him. Thus in all the

petitioner is entitled for Rs.4,24,000/- under all counts.

15. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by

enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,65,200/- to

Rs.4,24,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest

at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of

2009 ACJ 1298

realization. The 2nd respondent is directed to pay the said

compensation amount and recover the same from the first

respondent. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the

compensation within one month from the date of receipt of

a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant is

permitted to withdraw the entire compensation amount

without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as

to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

______________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI

03.03.2023 pgp