K Venkateshwar Rao, Ranga Reddy ... vs R Shankar, Ranga Reddy Dist And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 2813 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  M.A.C.M.A.NO.1082 OF 2015

JUDGMENT:

Heard learned counsel Sri K.Hari Mohan Reddy, learned

counsel for the appellant-claimant and Sri.A.Rama Krishna Reddy,

learned standing counsel for respondent No.2.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-claimant

dissatisfied with the award passed by Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, FAC:Chief Judge, City

Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, 'MACT') in M.V.O.P.No.1214 of

2010, dated 24.11.2014 and thereby seeking enhancement of

compensation.

3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.

4. On 31.12.2009 at about 12.30 p.m., while the appellant was

crossing the road at Chintalkunta and going near a Pan-shop and

in the meanwhile, a motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-29-TJ-

3190 came in rash and negligent manner at high speed and

dashed the appellant, as a result, the appellant fell down and

received grievous injuries and other injuries all over the body and

immediately, he was shifted to Kaminent Hospital, L.B.Nagar, LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

Hyderabad, where he took treatment and incurred lot of

expenditure and in spite of the same, the appellant did not recover

completely. The Police, L.B.Nagar P.S., registered a case in Crime

No.1/2010 against the rider of the offending vehicle and filed

charge sheet.

5. The claimant, i.e., the appellant filed claim petition against

the owner of the vehicle and insurance company under Section

166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the MACT claiming for

compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- along with interest from the date

of the accident till the date of realization.

6. The appellant was aged about 49 years as on the date of

accident, hale and healthy and as a lorry driver, he was earning an

income of Rs.20,000/- per month and contributing the same for

the welfare and maintenance of the family and due to accident, he

was suffering with permanent disability and thereby, the petitioner

was unable to do the work and lost income source.

7. The respondent No.1, the owner of the motor vehicle

remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed

counter denying allegations in the claim petition, that the rider of LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

the offending motor cycle at the time of the accident was having

valid driving license and that there was no negligence on the part

of the rider of the motorcycle and on the other hand, the accident

took place due to the negligence of the appellant, who crossed the

road without taking minimum precautions and hence, the claim

petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. In order to substantiate the case, the claimant examined

P.Ws.1 to 4 on his behalf and Exs.A1 to A10 and Exs.X1 to X5

were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurance company,

RW.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

9. On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the

following issues:

i) Whether the pleaded accident had occurred reuslting in injuries to the petitioner. K.Venkateshwar Rao, due to the rash and negligent driving of the Motor vehicle (Bajaj Pulsar Bearing Registration No.AP-29-TJ-3190), by its driver?

ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation and, if so, at what quantum and what is the liability of the respondents?

iii) To what relief ?

LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

10. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the

claimant/appellant, P.Ws.1 & 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10

& X1 to X5 were marked. To disprove the claim of the claimant, on

behalf of the respondent No.2-insurance company, RW.1 was

examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked.

11. The MACT, after considering the evidence placed on record,

came to conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash

and negligent driving of the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP-

29-TJ-3190 and awarded the compensation of Rs.2,63,500/- to the

claimant along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of

petition till the date of depositing of amount. The owner of the

vehicle and the Insurance company i.e., respondents 1 and 2 were

held to be jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.

12. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for

appellant submitted that the MACT ought to have considered the

income of the appellant as claimed by him i.e., Rs.20,000/- per

month as he was the owner and driver of the lorry and to prove the

same, P.W.4 who is an officer of Finance company was examined

on his behalf, who deposed in his evidence that appellant

purchased the lorry from him and running the same. He further LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

contended that the MACT has failed to consider loss of earning

capacity of the appellant at 100% as the appellant cannot drive

any vehicle as he sustained permanent disability. To that extent,

P.W.2-Doctor was examined, who deposed that appellant received

fracture injuries to both bones of left leg and fracture of left hand

and there was shortening of left leg by ½ inch and issued Ex.A6-

disability certificate. The MACT has also awarded lesser amount

with regard to the extra nourishment and transportation, clothing

etc.

13. With regard to income of the appellant, learned counsel for

the appellant submitted that the appellant was paying monthly

installment at Rs.15,264/- for the loan obtained from finance

company and maintaining his family members and having own

vehicle and prayed this Court to consider the monthly income of

the appellant at Rs.25,000/-. In support of his contention, he

placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Gurpreet Kaur and others vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

and others 1.

2023 ACJ 279 LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

14. Learned standing counsel appearing for insurance company

submitted that in the absence of any proof placed on record to

show the income of the appellant as Rs.20,000/- per month, the

MACT has rightly considered the income of the appellant as

Rs.6,000/- and just and reasonable amount was awarded towards

disability for the injuries sustained in the accident, and that there

are no grounds to interfere with the impugned award of the MACT

and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Consideration:

15. With regard to monthly earnings of the claimant/appellant,

MACT considered the monthly income of the claimant/appellant as

Rs.6,000/-. The claimant/appellant contended that he was getting

a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month as driver-cum-owner of lorry. The

claimant/appellant also got examined the officer of Sri Ram City

Union Finance Ltd., as P.W.4 and got marked extract of ledger as

Ex.X5 to support his contention that he was paying a sum of

Rs.15,264/- per month towards installment for the loan obtained

by the appellant/ claimant from said finance company.

LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

16. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gurpreet Kaur (supra), while

computing the monthly income, has taken into consideration that

the deceased was paying monthly installment of Rs.11,550/-,

maintaining a family and also affording a vehicle and fixed income

at Rs.25,000/- per month.

17. The facts in Gurpreet Kaur (supra) are similar to the facts of

the present case. Considering the evidence placed by the

appellant/claimant and in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex

Court in Gurpreet Kaur, in considered view of this Court, monthly

income of the appellant/claimant can be considered as

Rs.20,000/-.

18. Monthly income of the appellant/claimant is quantified at

Rs.20,000/-, which comes to Rs.2,40,000/- per annum. Since the

appellant/claimant was aged 49 years as on the date of accident,

the MACT correctly applied the multiplier '13' as per the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport

Corporation 2.

(2009) 6 SCC 121 LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

19. With regard to quantum of compensation, taking into

consideration the disability of the appellant as 25%, the total loss

of disability comes to Rs.8,40,000/- ( i.e., Rs.2,40,000 x 25% x 14).

Conclusion:

20. In view of the above, the appellant/claimant is entitled to

the following compensation:

      Sl.No.   Head                           Amount awarded

      1        Loss of disability             Rs. 8,40,000/-

      2        Extra nourishment              Rs.    5,000/-

      3        Medical expenses               Rs.   25,000/-

      4        Medicines      and       other Rs.    2,000/-
               investigations
      5        Transport charges              Rs.    1,000/-

                                    Total:    Rs. 8,73,000/-

21. The Appeal is allowed partly by enhancing the compensation

from Rs.2,63,500/- to Rs.8,73,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per

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

The respondent no.2 - Insurance Company shall deposit the

compensation amount within a period of eight (8) weeks from the

date of receipt of copy of this order by duly adjusting the amounts, LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

if any, already paid to the claimants. On such deposit, the

appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation

amount. There shall be no order as to costs.

22. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.

[[

____________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date: 29.09.2023 Ktm/kkm LNA,J MACMA No.1082 of 2015

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

M.A.C.M.A.NO.1082 OF 2015

Date: 29.09.2023

Ktm/kkm