Smt.Nevuri Mangamma vs Dr.Kalyan Sundaram Rajalaxmi Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 1172 Tel

        HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI

                    M.A.C.M.A. No.2855 of 2017

JUDGMENT:

Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded

by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special

Sessions Judge for trial of cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-VII

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar in M.V.O.P. No.934 of 2011, dated 13.03.2017, the present

appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as

arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The facts in issue are as under:

On 24.08.2011 at 2-00 p.m. she along with her son Sai Charan

was proceeding on his motorcycle bearing No. AP 28 AZ 7752 from

Balajinagar to Lalgadi Malakpet Village and when they reached near

Sports School, Thumkunta Village on Rajiv Rahadari, one Ford Car

bearing No. AP 10 AX 4445 being driven by its driver came in a rash

and negligent manner from opposite direction while overtaking

another vehicle dashed the petitioner's bike. As a result of which, the

petitioner and her son both fell down from the bike and sustained

injuries. Immediately, she was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where she

was admitted for one day. The doctors informed her for amputation

hand. As such, she was discharged against medical advice and got

admitted in Sunshine Hospital, Secunderabad where she was operated,

debridement, square nailing for fracture both bones of forearm,

external fixation of right radius with pen reduction internal fixation

with DCP plating (10 holed DCP) for fracture of right humorous were

done. She incurred about Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses.

According to the petitioner, she was aged about 40 years, doing cloth

business and tailoring work and earning Rs.10,000/- per month. But

due to injuries, her life became miserable, as her movements are

restricted and she cannot fold her hands. Thus, she is claiming

compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- under various heads against the

respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the owner and insurer of the

offending car.

4. First respondent remained exparte. Second respondent filed

counter disputing the manner of accident, age, avocation and income

of the injured, nature of injuries sustained by the petitioner and the

treatment taken by her.

5. Considering the oral and documentary evidence available on

record, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,50,000/- towards

compensation to the appellant-claimant against the respondent Nos.1

and 2 jointly and severally, along with proportionate costs and interest

@ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment, as

against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant and the

learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance

Company. Perused the material available on record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant has submitted

that although the claimant, by way of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and

Exs.A.1 to A.14 and Exs.X1 and X2, established the fact that the

petitioner has sustained grievous injuries in the accident and became

permanently disabled, the Tribunal awarded very meager amount

under various heads.

8. The learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of second

respondent-Insurance Company sought to sustain the impugned award

of the Tribunal contending that considering the avocation of the

petitioner, the learned Tribunal has awarded reasonable compensation

and the same needs no interference by this Court.

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

by the respondent-Insurance Company.

10. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the

compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and equitable?

11. The main contention advanced by the learned counsel for the

appellant is that in order to establish the fact that on account of the

injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, she has suffered

permanent disability, she examined herself as PW-1 and reiterated the

contents of the petition. PW-2 Dr.T.Chiranjeevi, Orthopedic Surgeon

in Sunshine Hospital deposed that the petitioner was admitted in their

hospital on 25.8.2011 with the following injuries:

1) Open grade III A segmental fracture both bones fracture right

2) Comminuted fracture shaft of right humorous (middle/lower

1/3rd).

She underwent surgery through debridement of the compound wounds

square nailing of both radious and ulna and external fixator

application for disted and radius plus DCP plating for fracture of right

humorous and the above injuries are grievous in nature. She was

discharged on 30.08.2011. She required assistance for all her daily

activities for two months. She was readmitted on 23.6.2012 for non-

union of fracture of both bones of right forearm, operated with open

reduction and internal fixation with plating for both bones after

removal of both square nails. She was advised limb elevation and

immobilization of right forearm. According to PW-2, patient wants

implant removal, which costs around Rs.30,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.

12. According to PW-3 who is the Billing Manager of Sunshine

Hospital, he issued Ex.X1 cash final bill in favour of the petitioner for

Rs.70,000/-. PW-1 was admitted in their hospital on 25.8.2011 and

again on 9.6.2012 and they issued Ex.A7 bills. She paid total bill for

Rs.25,093/-. Ex.X2 is another cash bill for Rs.5,000/-.

13. PW-4 is the Civil Assistant Surgeon at Area Hospital,

Kondapur. He deposed that PW-1 sustained permanent disability at

54% of right upper limb. Ex.A11 disability certificate was issued by

their Medical Board, which was issued by Government of Telangana

stating that the percentage of disability of PW-1 is 54%. Therefore,

considering the evidence of PWs.1 and 4, the tribunal rightly taken the

disability at 54%. According to the petitioner, she used to earn

Rs.10,000/- per month on cloth business as well as tailoring work.

Admittedly, no document was filed to prove the same. However,

considering the age and avocation of the petitioner, the tribunal has

taken her income at Rs.4,000/- per month, which appears to be

meager. Therefore, her income can be taken at Rs.5,000/- per month.

According to the petitioner, she was aged 40 years. 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 '15'. Therefore, the loss of earnings on account of the

disability would be Rs.5,000/- x 12 x 15 x 54/100 = Rs.4,86,000/- for

which the petitioner is entitled. Further the tribunal rightly awarded

Rs.95,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards future

2009 ACJ 1298

medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering,

Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment,

Rs.12,200/- towards transport charges, Rs.30,000/- towards extra

nourishment and Rs.9,000/- towards attendant charges, which are just

and reasonable and as such, the same are not disturbed. Thus in all,

the petitioner is awarded an amount of Rs.7,47,200/- under all counts.

14. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the

compensation from Rs.6,50,000/- to Rs.7,47,200/-. The enhanced

amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till

the date of realization to be payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2

jointly and severally. The amount shall be deposited within a period

of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 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

13.03.2023 pgp