Telangana High Court

Syed Taher vs The Apsrtc., And Another on 1 September, 2023

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.2977 of 2011


JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the injured claimant aggrieved by the award and

decree in O.P.No.2576 of 2008 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan

Sessions Judge - cum - XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad dated

03.03.2010 seeking enhancement of compensation from Rs.5,66,000/- awarded

by the Tribunal to Rs.7,00,000/- as claimed by him originally which was

enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- as per the order in I.A.No.1 of 2019 dated

21.11.2022.

2. The case of the claimant was that he was aged about 19 years and was

working as a fruit vendor and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month in Karimnagar

by the date of accident on 03.10.2008. He filed a claim petition under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicles Act stating that on 03.10.2008, he travelled in an

RTC bus bearing No.AP-28-Z-3538 from Karimnagar to Shamirpet. In the

afternoon hours at about 12:30 noon, the driver of the bus stopped the same at

Shamirpet Bus Stand. When the petitioner was getting down from the bus, the

driver suddenly moved the bus by speeding the accelerator. Due to the said

jolts and jerks, the petitioner fell down from the bus and the bus ran over the

right leg of the petitioner resulting which he sustained grievous injuries. The

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

Police of PS Shamirpet registered a case under Section 338 of IPC against the

driver of the RTC bus. The petitioner stated that immediately after the accident,

he was admitted in Government Hospital, Shamirpet and after first-aid, he was

shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad where he was admitted as in-patient

from 04.10.2008 to 28.10.2008. An amputation was done to his right leg below

knee due to the crush injury of right leg. The petitioner claimed compensation

from the Depot Manager of Manthani Depot of Karimnagar and the Managing

Director of APSRTC (TSRTC).

3. The respondents filed counter and called for strict proof of age,

occupation, manner of accident, treatment taken and the amounts spent for

transportation, medicines, extra nourishment and contended that the amount

claimed was excessive, arbitrary and prayed to dismiss the petition.

4. Before the MACT, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got

examined a prosthetist and orthotist of M/S.Endolite India Limited as PW.2, the

doctor who assessed the disability as PW.3 and a person doing a similar

business as fruit vendor as PW.4. Exs.A1 to A12 and Ex.X1 were marked on

behalf of the petitioner.

5. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents.

6. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the

Tribunal considered the earnings of the petitioner as Rs.4,000/- per month and

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

considering his age as 19 years applied multiplier "16" and considered the

partial and permanent disability of the petitioner as 50% as per the evidence of

PW.3 and assessed the loss of future earnings as Rs.3,84,000/-. The Tribunal

awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards artificial leg and awarded

Rs.5,000/- for transportation, Rs.5,000/- for extra nourishment and medicines

(including medical bills for Rs.3,787/-). The Tribunal further awarded an

amount of Rs.12,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment and

awarded Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. In total, the Tribunal awarded

an amount of Rs.5,66,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5 % per

annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

7. Aggrieved by the said award and decree, the claimant preferred this

appeal contending that the Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of

earnings of the claimant at 100 % instead of 50 %, ought to have applied

multiplier "18" instead of "16", ought to have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards

artificial leg instead of Rs.1,00,000/-, ought to have awarded amounts towards

loss of amenities in life, loss of marriage prospects, attendant charges, etc. and

ought to have considered the income of the appellant @ Rs.5,000/- per month

and ought to have awarded interest @ 11 % or 12 % per annum.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing

Counsel for TSRTC appearing for the respondents.

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

9. As seen from the record, the claimant contended that he was aged 19

years by the date of accident. The same was also accepted by the Tribunal, but

applied multiplier "16". As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Sarla Verma (Smt.) and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and

Another 1, the relevant multiplier for the age group between 15 to 20 years is

"18". Hence, the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier "18" instead of

"16", as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.

10. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance

Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi 2 , future prospects also have to be

considered even for self-employed persons or for persons on a fixed salary. As

per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India Assurance

Company Limited v. Gajender Yadav and Others 3, future prospects can also

be considered even in cases of permanent and partial disability. In the present

case, future prospects were not considered by the Tribunal.

11. As per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq and

Others v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited 4,

in case of a vegetable vendor, in the absence of any proof of income, the income

is considered as Rs.6,500/- per month for the accident occurred in the year

(2009) 6 SCC 121

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2018) 11 SCC 630

(2014) 2 SCC 735

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

2008. In the present case also, the date of accident was in the year 2008.

Hence, it is considered appropriate to take the monthly income of the claimant

as Rs.6,500/- per month. As the claimant was aged below 20 years, 40 % is to

be added towards his future prospects. Hence, the monthly income of the

claimant including his future prospects is considered as Rs.6,500/- + Rs.2,600/-

(40 % of Rs.6,500/-) = Rs.9,100/-.

12. The evidence of PW.3, the Superintendent of Gandhi Hospital would

disclose that Ex.A8, disability certificate was issued by the Superintendent of

Gandhi Hospital and the members of the Medical Board estimated the disability

as 50 % partial and permanent under Ex.A8. Considering the occupation of the

claimant as a fruit vendor, though his movements were restricted due to

amputation of his right leg below knee but as he could still continue to do

business, the functional disability of the claimant also can be considered as

50%. As such, the loss of earnings including future prospects due to the partial

and permanent disability sustained by the petitioner can be assessed as

Rs.9,100/- x 12 x 18 x 50/100 = Rs.9,82,800/-. Considering the nature of

disability sustained by the claimant, the loss of earnings during the treatment

period can be assessed for five (05) months, which would come to

Rs.6,500/- x 5 = Rs.32,500/-.

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

13. PW.2 was examined to prove the quotation issued by M/S.Endolite India

Limited, which would disclose that the cost of artificial leg was Rs.1,01,100/-

and that the same could be used for a duration of 7 to 8 years and after that he

would need to obtain a fresh artificial leg basing on its condition. Hence, it is

considered fit to award an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as claimed by the petitioner

towards the artificial leg. The Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.50,000/-

towards pain and suffering but not awarded any amounts towards loss of

amenities in life and loss of marriage prospects. Considering the age of the

claimant as 19 years and due to amputation of his right leg below knee, his

marriage prospects also would be affected, it is considered fit to award an

amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss

of amenities in life and Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of marital prospects. The

petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, but

filed medical bills only for an amount of Rs.3,787/-. Hence, it is considered fit

to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under this head considering his future

medical requirements also. An amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards

transportation and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment is considered as

reasonable. As no amount is awarded towards attendant charges and as his

family members might have performed the role of care giver, it is considered fit

to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges.

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011

14. Hence, the claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads as

follows:

             S.        Conventional Heads                  Compensation Awarded
             No.

1. Loss of earnings including future Rs.9,82,800/-

prospects due to partial and permanent disability

2. For purchase of artificial leg Rs.2,00,000/-

             3.        Pain and suffering                  Rs.1,00,000/-
             4.        Loss of amenities in life           Rs.1,00,000/-
             5.        Loss of Marital Prospects           Rs.1,00,000/-

6. Loss of earnings during treatment Rs.32,500/-

             7.        Medical Expenses                    Rs.10,000/-
             8.        Attendant Charges                   Rs.10,000/-
             9.        Transportation                      Rs.5,000/-
             10.       Extra Nourishment                   Rs.5,000/-
             Total:                                        Rs.15,45,300/-

15. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v.

Gurudayal Singh and Others 5, the compensation can be awarded over and

above the amount claimed by the claimant, which is considered as just and

reasonable. Hence, it is considered fit to enhance the compensation from

Rs.5,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.15,45,300/- with costs and interest

@ 7.5 % per annum.

16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. filed by the injured claimant is allowed

enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,66,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.15,45,300/- with costs & interest @ 7.5 % per annum and the respondents

are directed to deposit the said amount within a period of eight (08) weeks after

2003 (2) SCC 274

Dr.GRR, J macma_2977_2011