Telangana High Court
T.Eshwardas vs Mrs. Gurujala Jalaja Rani Another on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Namavarapu Rajeshwar Rao
1 RRN,J
MACMA No.2752 of 2015
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by
the order and decree dated 20.01.2015, passed in
M.V.O.P.No.2718 of 2013 by the Chairman, Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad (for short "the Tribunal").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be
hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the
Tribunal.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner
filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- on account
of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. It
is stated that on 07.06.2013 at about 5.00 a.m., the
petitioner along with his family members were proceeding
in the vehicle bearing No.AP 25X 3323 from Tirupathi to
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
Thippapur village and on the way when it reached the
outskirts of Rangareddyguda Village, the driver of the said
vehicle drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high
speed and dashed a lorry from its behind and caused the
accident, wherein the petitioner received grievous injuries
and immediately, he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad, and thereafter he took treatment privately
and incurred a lot of expenditure and in spite of the same,
he is not cured completely and suffering with a permanent
disability. The petitioner was aged about 45 years and hale
and healthy at the time of the accident and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month as a Goldsmith. Hence, the claim
petition.
4. Respondent No.1 was set ex parte and
Respondent No.2 filed counter before the Tribunal, denying
all the allegations raised by the petitioner and submittig
that both drivers of the vehicles have no valid driving
licenses and the amount of compensation claimed by the
petitioner is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition
with costs.
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
5. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs.1 and 2 were
examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A7. No oral evidence
was adduced on behalf of the respondents and marked
Ex.B1, which is the copy of Policy.
6. On appreciating the evidence on record, the
Tribunal allowed the petition in part by granting
compensation of Rs.5,65,500/- to the petitioner payable by
respondents No.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Aggrieved by
the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed
by the petitioner/claimant.
7. Heard and perused the record.
8. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
had contended that the Tribunal erred in considering the
income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month despite
the petitioner proving that he was working as a goldsmith
and claiming that the income of the petitioner deserves to
be enhanced. He further contended that the Tribunal
failed to award future prospects @ 25 % on the income of
the petitioner, and the Tribunal granted a meagre amount
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
in respect of transportation charges and extra-nourishment
and no amount was awarded towards pain and suffering
and attendant charges. Accordingly, prayed to allow the
appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2/Insurance Company had contended that
the petitioner failed to produce any documentary evidence
with regard to his age, profession, let alone his income. He
further contended that assuming that the petitioner is
really a goldsmith, the injuries sustained by him to his legs
cause no hindrance to the petitioner to carry on his work
as a goldsmith. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
10. A careful perusal of the order passed by the
Tribunal goes to show that it rightly considered the age of
the petitioner as 51 years at the time of the accident, but
the multiplier "10" is to be substituted with "11" as per
Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1. It is
further observed that the Tribunal fixed the monthly
2009 ACJ 1208(SC)
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
earnings of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- per month for the
reason that the petitioner failed to produce any
documentary evidence. However, the petitioner pleaded
that he was working as a Goldsmith and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month, but nothing is elicited by the
respondent/Insurance Company disproving the occupation
of the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Sanobanu Nazirbhai Mirza Vs. Ahmedabad Municipal
Transport Service2 held as under:
"Having regard to nature of job that deceased
was performing as skilled polisher, it would be
just and proper to take his monthly income as
Rs.5,000/-...."
Hence, it would be just and proper if the income of the
petitioner is fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month keeping in view
of his occupation being a skilled worker. The Tribunal
failed to award future prospects to the income of the
petitioner and awarded meagre/no compensation under
various heads.
2014 (1) ALD 116 (SC)
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
11. The petitioner was granted Rs.5,65,500/- and
the same is interfered with in the following manner:
Head Amount arrived at by Amount arrived at by
the Tribunal this Court
Monthly income of Rs.4,500/- Rs.5,000/-
the petitioner
Annual income Rs.54,000/- Rs.60,000/- (Rs.5,000
(Rs.4,500/- x 12) x 12)
Future prospects Nil Rs.6,000/- (10% to be
taken as per Pranay
Sethi)
Annual Income + Rs.54,000/- + Nil Rs.66,000/-
Future prospects
Percentage of 100% 100%
Disability
Multiplier 10 "11" (As per Sarla
Verma)
Loss of future Rs.5,40,000/- Rs.7,26,000/-
earnings (54,000/- x 10) (Rs.66,000/- x 11)
excluding future including future
prospects. prospects
Transportation Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
charges
Extra nourishment Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
Pain and suffering Nil Rs.40,000/-
Medical bills Rs.3,500/- Rs.3,500/-
Loss of amenities Nil Rs.25,000/-
Future operation Rs.20,000/- Rs.50,000/-
Total Rs.5,65,500/- Rs.8,54,500/-
12. In all, the petitioners are entitled to Rs.8,54,500/-
towards compensation.
13. Though the claimed amount is Rs.6,50,000/-, invoking
the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh vs. Rajbir Singh3,
and in a catena of decisions, this Court is empowered to grant
compensation beyond the claimed amount.
14. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing
the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from
Rs.5,65,500/- to Rs.8,54,500/- (Rupees Eight Lakh, Fifty
Four Thousand and Five Hundred only) with interest @7.5%
per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date
of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said
compensation amount together with interest and costs within
a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of
this judgment by giving due credit to the amount already
deposited if any. The petitioner is directed to pay the deficit
Court fee on the enhanced compensation and upon such
payment, he is permitted to withdraw the entire amount of
compensation as the accident occurred in the year 2013.
There shall be no order as to costs.
MANU/SC/0480/2013
RRN,J
M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2015
As a sequel of which, miscellaneous petitions, if any
pending, shall stand closed.
_____________________________________
NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J
15th March, 2023
BDR/PNS
