Telangana High Court

T. Kishore vs S. Salva Reddy And Another on 4 September, 2023

Bench: G.Radha Rani

      THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G. RADHA RANI

                      M.A.C.M.A.No.1320 of 2011


JUDGMENT:

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

decree in M.V.O.P.No.1312 of 2006 dated 22.07.2009 passed by the Chairman,

Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short "MACT") - cum- Principal District

Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad seeking enhancement of

compensation from Rs.1,81,544/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.3,00,000/- as

claimed by him.

2. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor

Vehicles Act. He stated that he was aged 19 years, was a student and was also

doing business and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. On 15.08.2006, he along

with his friend proceeded on a Hero Honda motorcycle to visit Jurala Project

and on their return when reached near Maisamma Temple at the outskirts of

Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District at about 07:30 PM, a tractor bearing No.AP-

22-E-2880 came in opposite direction with only having a left side light. By

considering it as a two-wheeler, the claimant who was riding the motorcycle

crossed it and hit the tractor, due to which he sustained head injury and the

pillion rider also sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, both the

claimant and the pillion rider were shifted to Government Hospital, Atmakur

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

and from there the claimant was shifted to Sai Krishna Super Speciality Neuro

Hospital (for short SKN Hospital), Kachiguda, Hyderabad for better treatment.

The claimant submitted that on the complaint lodged by his father, the Police of

PS Atmakur registered a case in Crime No.79 of 2006 against the driver of the

Tractor bearing No.AP-22-E-2880. The petitioner claimed compensation of

Rs.3,00,000/- from respondents 1 and 2, the owner and insurer of the tractor.

3. The respondent No.1 remained ex-parte.

4. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments. The

respondent No.2 called for strict proof of the manner of accident, injuries

sustained by the claimant, his age and earnings and the amount spent by the

claimant towards medical expenses. He further contended that the driver of the

tractor was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the

accident. The compensation claimed was excessive, exorbitant and out of

proportion.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and got

examined the Neuro Surgeon and Director of Sai Krishna Super Speciality

Neuro Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad as PW.2. Exs.A1 to A9 and Ex.C1

were marked on behalf of the claimant.

6. No oral evidence was adduced by respondent No.2. The copy of the

Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1.

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

7. On considering the evidence of PW.1 and the documents marked as

Exs.A1 to A4, the certified copy of FIR, Medico Legal Record, certified copy of

the charge-sheet and the discharge card issued by SKN Hospital, the Tribunal

opined that the accident occurred was due to the rash and negligent driving of

the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP-22-E-2880.

8. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal considered the

age of the claimant as 19 years and his earnings as Rs.2,000/- per month as

business man at Atmakur, Mahabubnagar District and considered his income as

Rs.24,000/- per annum and after deducting one-third towards his personal

expenses, considered the income as Rs.16,000/-and by applying multiplier "16"

as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act and assessing the

disability as 20% as against the evidence of PW.2 that he sustained 40%

disability, awarded compensation for continuing permanent disability at

Rs.51,200/- and considered the loss of earnings for a period of three (03)

months during the treatment and awarded Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal awarded

Rs.1,11,844/- towards medical expenses incurred by the claimant and awarded

Rs.2,500/-towards transportation and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain

and suffering. In total, awarded an amount of Rs.1,81,544/- with interest @ 6 %

per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and held the

respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount to the

claimant.

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

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

appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in granting compensation only to an

extent of Rs.1,81,544/- as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. The Tribunal

ought to have taken into consideration the disability sustained by the claimant as

40% instead of 20% and ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards

medical and incidental expenses as against the sum of Rs.1,11,844/- and though

the claimant incurred a sum of Rs.23,470/- towards transportation to the

Hospital, awarded only a sum of Rs.2,500/- and not awarded any amounts

towards attendant charges, extra nourishment and prayed to allow the appeal.

10. Heard Sri K.Venkata Ram Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and

Sri A.Rama Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 -

Insurance Company.

11. As this appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal, this Court considers it fit to limit its

observations on the said count.

12. The claimant examined himself as PW.1. He stated his age as 19 years

by the date of the accident on 15.08.2006 and that he was a student and was also

doing business. He had not stated that what he was studying or what business

he was doing either in the claim petition or in his evidence affidavit. In his

cross-examination, he stated that he completed his intermediate course and

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

stated that his father was running a medical shop at Atmakur, Mahabubnagar

District and he was looking after the medical shop business of his father and

was not running any business on his own.

13. However, as the notional income of a labour was even considered as

Rs.4,500/- per month, it is considered fit to take the notional income of the

injured claimant as Rs.4,500/- per month. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 would

disclose that the claimant sustained head injury with frontal depressed fracture

with frontal contusion and right iliac crest fracture. The discharge summary,

marked as Ex.A4 also would disclose that a surgery was conducted for the right

frontal depressed fracture and elevation was done under general anesthesia.

14. PW.2 stated that the claimant also sustained a hip bone fracture of right

iliac crest, the brain contusion was grievous in nature and required long term

treatment for recovery and he was advised medication to prevent from fits for

three (03) years and had taken up treatment regularly as out-patient. He stated

that because of the head injury, the patient sometimes might have loss of

memory and uninhibited behavior and assessed the disability of the claimant as

40%.

15. Considering the evidence of PW.2, the functional disability sustained by

the petitioner also can be considered as 40%. Further, as no future prospects are

added, considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in New India

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

Assurance Company Limited v. Gajender Yadav and Others 1 and Lalan D.

@ Lal and Another v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited 2, as loss of

future prospects shall also be considered in cases of partial and permanent

disability and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National

Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and Others 3, considering the

injured as a self-employed person and the age of the petitioner being 19 years,

40% of his income is added towards his future prospects. Hence, the income of

injured claimant can be considered as Rs.4,500 + Rs.1800/- (40% of Rs.4,500/-)

= Rs.6,300/-. The Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses of the

claimant. But, as no amount can be deducted in injury cases, it is considered

that the Tribunal committed an irregularity in deducting the said amount. The

Tribunal had taken multiplier "16" as per the Second Schedule of the Motor

Vehicles Act, but as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla

Verma (Smt.) & Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation 4, multiplier "18" is

applicable for the age of the claimant at 19 years. As such, the loss of income

due to the disability sustained by the claimant can be assessed as Rs.6,300/- x

12 x 18 x 40% = Rs.5,44,300/-.

16. The claimant filed in-patient bill for an amount of Rs.98,917/- towards

his admission in SKN Hospital, Kachiguda, Hyderabad from 15.08.2006 to

(2018) 11 SCC 630

(2020) 9 SCC 805

(2017) 16 SCC 680

(2009) 6 SCC 121

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

28.08.2006 and also filed a bunch of other medical bills and bills for

transportation to the Hospital for an amount of Rs.1,35,214/- (including the

amount of Rs.98,917/-). Hence, it is considered fit to award the above amount

of Rs.1,35,214/- towards medical expenses and transportation.

17. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings

during the period of treatment. Considering the head injury and hip bone

fracture sustained by the claimant, the loss of income can be assessed for a

period of six months and can be taken as Rs.4,500/- x 6 = Rs.27,000/-.

18. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and

suffering. As the claimant was a young boy of 19 years of age and a surgery for

brain was conducted on him and as he had to take treatment for a period of three

years for prevention of fits and there was a chance of loss of memory as stated

by PW.2, the petitioner was bound to suffer a lot of pain and suffering. As

such, it is considered fit to enhance the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the

Tribunal to Rs.25,000/- under this head.

19. As some family members might have attended to him during the period of

his treatment at SKN Hospital at Kachiguda, Hyderabad and also accompanied

him for his follow-up treatment from his native place Atmakur to Hyderabad

every time, it is considered fit to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

attendant charges. As no amount is awarded towards extra nourishment, it is

considered fit to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- under the said head.

20. As such, the claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads as

follows:

S.No. Conventional Heads Compensation Awarded

1. Loss of income due to permanent Rs.5,44,320/-

disability

2. Medical Expenses and Transportation Rs.1,35,214/-

3. Loss of earnings during the period of Rs.27,000/-

treatment (for a period of six months)

4. Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/-

           5.     Attendant charges                        Rs.10,000/-
           6.     Extra nourishment                        Rs.5,000/-
           Total:                                          Rs.7,46,534/-

21. Though, the claimant claimed only an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

compensation, as there is no restriction to award more than the amount claimed

by the claimant, which is considered as just and reasonable, as per the

judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and

Others 5 and Sanjay Verma v. Haryana Roadways 6 and 5-Judge Bench

Judgment of this Court in Adam Indur Muttemma and Others v. Rathod

Reddia and Others 7 , it is considered fit to award the compensation of

Rs.7,46,534/-.

(2003) 2 SCC 274

(2014) 3 SCC 210

2015 (4) ALD 585

Dr.GRR, J macma_1320_2011

22. As the Tribunal had awarded interest only @ 6 % per annum, it is

considered fit to enhance the same to 7.5 % per annum.

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

enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,81,544/-awarded by the Tribunal to

Rs.7,46,534/- with costs and interest @ 7.5 % per annum on the enhanced

amount. The respondent No.2 - Insurance Company is directed to deposit the

said amount after deducting the amount deposited if any within a period of eight

(08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment and on such