Mohd. Azmath vs T. Ankamma
2023 Latest Caselaw 3886 Tel

  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

               M.A.C.M.A. No.3480 of 2011

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dt.16-03-2011 in O.P.No.2538 of 2008 of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XII Additional Chief Judge (FTC), City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. On 18-09-2008 when the appellant was standing near Sriram Nagar, Yousufguda, a lorry bearing No.AP- 12U-6162 belong to

1st respondent dashed against him. He suffered fracture of the left hand, left shoulder and grievous injuries to his head and neck.

3. He filed O.P.No.2538 of 2008 seeking compensation of

Rs.2 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by him. P.W.2, Ortho Surgeon in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad certified that

the appellant had grade III B Galizzi fracture dislocation left frame, that he was discharged on 23-09-2008 by fixing

a nail and after performing skin grafting. He also stated that the wound was infected and skin graft was rejected

because of which appellant needs further surgery to correct the complications. He therefore held that the

appellant suffered a disability of 25% and cannot use left upper limb to carry weights. He also stated that the injuries suffered by appellant are grievous in nature.

4. The Tribunal took his monthly income as

Rs.1,250/-, deducted 1/3rd out of it for personal expenses

and held that he is entitled to compensation of Rs.80,500/- including Rs.67,500/- towards compensation for injuries,

Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges.

5. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed.

6. Heard Sri T.Vishwarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Nizar Uddin Ahmed Jeddy,

leaned counsel for

2nd respondent.

7. Learned counsel for appellant contended that the

income of the appellant as considered by the Tribunal is

very low, that the appellant was employed as a skilled labour in marble laying works and it should have

assessed his income taking into account future

prospects. He also contended that the assessment of

disability by the Tribunal @ 25% is erroneous.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel for 2nd

respondent contended that the assessment made by the Tribunal is correct and did not warrant any interference by

this Court. He also contended that the appellant was only a boy aged 20 years, he is not an adult and that there is

no evidence placed on record to show that he was doing

marble laying works and was therefore to be treated as a skilled labour.

9. I have noted the submissions of both sides.

10. It is true that there is no evidence about

income being earned by appellant. Although the appellant has contended before the Tribunal that he is earning

Rs.5,000/- p.m., it considered his income to be only

Rs.1,250/- p.m. In my opinion, assessment of the income

of the appellant at Rs.1,250/- p.m. = Rs.15,000/- p.a. by

the Tribunal is too low and the Tribunal should have at least taken his monthly income as Rs.1,500/- or

Rs.18,000/- p.a. If 1/3rd of the said amount is deducted

towards his personal expenses, then the net income

would be Rs.12,000/- p.a. As per the judgment in Rajesh

[1] and Others Vs. Rajbir Singh and others , even in

respect of self-employed persons, future prospects should be taken into account and 50% addition is to be made.

Taking this into account, the income of the appellant has

to be taken as Rs.12,000/- p.a. + Rs.6,000/- = Rs.18,000/-

p.a.

11. As regards the contention of the learned

counsel for appellant that the appellant was a skilled

labour, there is no averment to that effect in the O.P.

petition. He also did not make any statement to that effect in his evidence. Therefore, he cannot be treated as a

skilled labour capable of earning a higher income.

12. Since the appellant was aged 20 years at

the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier to be

applied is 18. Although the Tribunal had determined the disability of the appellant as only 25%, considering the

evidence of P.W.2 that he would not be able to lift weights

and considering the employment of the appellant at the

time of accident as a labour, I am of the opinion that

functional disability of the appellant has to be taken as at

least 50%. Therefore, the compensation payable to the

appellant would be Rs.18,000/- x 18 (multiplier) x 50% =

Rs.1,62,000/-. To this amount, a sum of Rs.10,000/- is to be added towards compensation for pain and suffering

and Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges. Thus, the total

compensation payable to the appellant is Rs.1,75,000/-.

The said amount is payable with interest @ 9% p.a. from

the date of petition till deposit before the Tribunal by 2nd

respondent within a period of 2 months from today. Upon

such deposit, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the

entire amount without furnishing any security.

13. M.A.C.M.A. is allowed as above. No costs.

14. Miscellaneous applications pending if any,

in this appeal shall stand closed.

__________________________________ JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 07-02-2014 vsv

[1] 2013 ACJ 1403