K. Ravi, vs A. Madhava Krishna
2023 Latest Caselaw 1253 Tel

                                   1                                     RRN,J
                                                           MACMA No.99 of 2015




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

                         M.A.C.M.A.No.99 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

This MACMA is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the claimant seeking

enhancement of compensation, aggrieved by the order and decree

dt.04.06.2013 passed in O.P.No.418 of 2011 by the Chairman, Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad

(for short "the Tribunal").

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

referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

3. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.07.2010 at about 4.30

p.m., while the petitioner was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing

No. AP-25-M-5209 towards Perkit from Mamidipally and when he

reached Annapurna Order Mess, the Tractor & Trolley bearing No.AP-25-

Q-7886 & AP-25-Q-7986 being driven in a rash and negligent manner

came in opposite direction and dashed the motorcycle of the petitioner,

due to which, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Due to the

said accident, his right leg below the knee was amputated and he 2 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015

incurred an expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- for his treatment. As such,

due to his disability, he lost his earning capacity and future prospects.

Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents seeking

compensation of Rs.8,00,000/-.

4. The respondents filed separate counters denying the petition

allegations and mainly contended that the accident was as a result of the

rash and negligent driving of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner to prove his case, examined PWs.1 to 3 and got

marked Exs.A1 to A15. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor

documentary evidence was adduced.

6. After considering the evidence available on record, the

Tribunal allowed the claim petition in part by granting Rs.3,64,165/- to

the petitioner towards compensation. Aggrieved by the quantum of

compensation, the present appeal.

7. Heard both sides and perused the record.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the

Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner was not

earning at the time of the accident only because the petitioner admitted

that he was pursuing his Intermediate. He further contended that 3 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015

despite the Tribunal observed that the petitioner sustained 60%

disability vide Ex.A14 issued by the Medical Board, it failed to fix the

notional income of the petitioner and calculate the loss of future earnings

using the multiplier method, but simply awarded a lump sum of

Rs.3,00,000/- under the head "disability." He further contended that

compensation awarded under other heads is very meagre and prayed to

enhance the same by allowing the appeal.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent

would contend that the Tribunal was justified in fixing the compensation

in spite of no evidence being adduced by the petitioner with regard to his

income, yet the Tribunal awarded a lump sum amount towards

disability. Accordingly, prayed to dismiss the appeal.

10. As seen from the evidence on record, it is proved that the

petitioner sustained grievous injury leading to amputation of right leg

below the knee in view of Ex.A14 coupled with the testimony of PW.3,

and the Tribunal awarded lump sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards such

disability which is not justified. This Court is inclined to fix the notional

income of the petitioner at Rs.4,500/- p.m. in view of the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramchandrappa vs Manager, Royal 4 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015

Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.1. To this, 40% future

prospects are added as the petitioner was aged 20 years at the time of

the accident (contrary not proved). Thus, the monthly income of the

petitioner is Rs.4,500/- + 40% = Rs.6,300/- and annually it comes to

Rs.75,600/- (Rs.6,300/- x 12) and for the purpose of calculation of loss

of future earnings, the same is to be multiplied with '18' as per National

Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Pranay Sethi2 and 60% of such amount

is to be considered in respect of disability i.e. Rs.75,600 x 18 x 60% = Rs.

8,16,480/-.

11. The petitioner is also entitled to Rs.37,165/- towards medical

bills; Rs.25,000/- towards extra-nourishment and attendant charges and

Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all, the petitioner is entitled

to Rs.9,03,645/-. Though the claimed amount is Rs.8,00,000/- invoking

the principle of just compensation, and in view of the law laid 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.

1( 2011 ) 13 SCC 236 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680.

MANU/SC/0480/2013 5 RRN,J MACMA No.99 of 2015

12. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed by enhancing the

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.3,64,165/- to

Rs.9,03,645/- (Rupees Nine Lakh, Three thousand, Six hundred and

Forty Five only) with interest of 7.5% from the date of petition till the

date of realization. The respondents shall deposit the said compensation

amount together with interest and costs after giving due credit to the

amount already deposited, if any, within a period of two months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner is directed to

pay the deficit Court fee. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________________________ NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, J

15th day of March, 2023 BDR