Telangana High Court
Shaik Raheem, Adilabad Dist vs Md. Tajuddin, Adilabad Dist And 2 Others on 16 April, 2024
SWHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.1052 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-
claimant dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the
Chairman Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III Additional
District Judge, Asifabad (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.323 of
2015, dated 06.12.2016 and thereby seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. Appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent no.1 and
2 herein are the driver and owner of the crime and
respondent no.3 herein is the insurance company. For
convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed
before the Tribunal.
3. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is that the
petitioner is aged about 29 years and earning Rs.10,000/- per
month and Rs.100/- batta per day as cleaner of lorry. On
15.11.2014, the petitioner is proceeding on lorry bearing
registration No.AP-15-TA-3744 from Vani to Bellamapally and
about 3:30 a.m, when the said lorry reached at the out skirts
of Pegadapalli village, the driver of said lorry drove the vehicle
in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which,
the said lorry dashed another lorry bearing registration No.AP-
15-X-1230 in opposite direction. As a result, the petitioner
was struck in the cabin of the lorry and sustained fractures
and injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to
Gandhi Hospital, Bellampally and thereafter, he was admitted
as inpatient on 15.11.2014 in Fortune Medcare Hospital,
Karimnagar and discharged on 24.11.2014; that he spent
Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/-
towards transportation. Due to the accident, the petitioner
lost his earning capacity and suffered pain and agony. Hence,
the petitioner filed petition claiming Rs.3,50,000/- towards
compensation.
4. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The
respondent No.3-insurance company filed counter denying the
narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of
occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the
claimant. It is contended that respondent No.1-driver has no
valid driving licence and thereby, violated terms and
conditions of insurance policy, as such, respondent No.3 is not
liable to pay any compensation. Hence, prayed to dismiss the
claim petition.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed
the following issues:
1) Whether claimant sustained injuries in the accident that
occurred on 15.11.2014 at about 3.30 a.m., at the
outskirts of Pegadapalli Village?
2) Whether the said accident was caused due to rash and
negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP-15-TA-3744 ?
3) Whether the claimant is entitled to claim compensation
if so how much and against whom of the respondents?
4) To what relief?
6. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the
claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8
were marked. On behalf of respondent No.3, none was
examined and no document was marked.
7. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and
evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the
accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of
Rs.2,22,000/- towards compensation to the claimant payable
by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally with costs
and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the petition till the
date of realization.
8. Heard learned counsel Sri S.Surender Reddy for the
appellant/petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondent no.3-insurance company.
9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel
for appellant/petitioner submitted that though the petitioner
was earning Rs.6,000/- per month, the Tribunal has taken the
monthly income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- and awarded
very meagre amount towards compensation. Hence, he
prayed the Court to allow the appeal by enhancing the
compensation.
10. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance
Company-respondent No.3 sought to sustain the impugned
award passed by the Tribunal stating that after considering
the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly
awarded the compensation and the same needs no
interference by this Court. Hence, he prayed the Court to
dismiss the appeal.
11. Insofar as the other contention of the learned counsel
for appellant that Tribunal erred in taking the monthly income
of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- is concerned, perusal of record
would show that the Tribunal considering the period of
accident period of accident, had assessed his income at
Rs.3,000/- per month. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, period of accident, the
inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., this Court is
of opinion the notional income of the petitioner can be fixed
at Rs.6,000/- per month and therefore, the same needs to be
modified to the above extent. Since the petitioner is
prevented from attending to work for more than six months,
the loss of earnings comes to Rs.36,000/- (Rs.6,000/- x 6)
and petitioner is also entitled to Rs.25,000/- towards
transportation and attendant charges and the same need to
be modified to that extent.
12. With regard to the compensation awarded on other
heads, in considered opinion of this Court, the Tribunal has
rightly awarded the amounts and therefore, there is no need
to interfere with the same.
13. In view of the above discussion, the compensation
amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation
awarded
1. Loss of income (Rs.6,000/- x 6) Rs. 36,000/-
2. Pain and agony Rs. 50,000/-
3. Expenditure for treatment Rs.1,36,900/-
4. Transportation & attendant charges Rs. 25,000/-
Total compensation to be paid: Rs.2,47,900/- rounded
off to Rs.2,48,000/-
14. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned
judgment passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation
amount is concerned, is modified by enhancing the
compensation amount from Rs.2,22,000/- to Rs.2,48,000/-,
which shall carry interest @ 7.5%, from the date of the claim
petition till the date of realization, to be payable by the
respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally within a period of
six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order,
duly adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited by the
respondents. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to
withdraw the enhanced compensation amount. There shall be
no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
____________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 16.04.2024
Dsu/kkm
