Telangana High Court
Satla Veeraiah vs Jagarapu Ravi , Jayyaram Ravi And ... on 22 April, 2024
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A.No.2995 of 2008
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is preferred by the claimant aggrieved by the
compensation of Rs.85,000/- granted by the Tribunal in
O.P.No.654 of 2004, dated 29-11-2005, which is meager,
though the claim was made for Rs.2,00,000/- and to enhance
the same.
2. The appellant /claimant is the injured. Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 are the driver and insurer of the offending auto.
3. Heard both sides.
4. Accident is not disputed by either of the parties. The
only dispute is regarding compensation amount. Learned
counsel appearing for the appellant / claimant would submit
that on 25-01-2004 when the claimant was travelling in the
auto he has received the following injuries:
1. Fracture medial and lateral mallelous bones of right
ankle.
2. Un-disputed surgical neck fracture humerous of right
shoulder.
3. Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs of chest right side.
4. Lacerated wound of 10 x 2 cms over right shoulder.
The said injures are not disputed by the Insurance Company.
However, certification of PW-2 / Doctor stating that the
disability is 40% cannot be accepted.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
would submit that merely filing Ex.A-25, which is copy of
Heavy Motor Driving Licence of appellant / claimant, is not
suffice to infer that he was working as Driver and earning
Rs.6,000/- per month.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant / claimant would submit that lower Court has
granted a meagre amount of Rs.150/- per day to the
claimant, who was working as Lorry Driver. He has produced
Heavy Motor Driving Licence of appellant. He would further
submit that according to PW-2 / Doctor, appellant is having
40% disability which is post traumatic stiffness of right
shoulder and discomfort of right ankle joint. In the said
condition he cannot continue to pursue his profession as
Driver. Stiffness of right shoulder and discomfort of right
ankle joint would totally come in the way of driving and the
disability has to be considered at 100%.
7. Doctor - PW-2 assessed the disability at 40%. The
injuries which were received by the claimant are 3 fractures.
Admittedly, the finding of the Doctor - PW-2, who has treated
the injured - claimant and also assessed the disability cannot
be overlooked only for the reason of PW-2 not being a
member of the Board. He is a competent Doctor and he can
as well assess the disability factor of a patient. Accordingly,
disability as certified by PW-2 can be considered while
granting compensation.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company
relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in
Rani and others v. National Insurance Company Limited
and others 1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing
with the situation where the notional income of the claimant
(2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 492
was enhanced from Rs.3,000/- per month to Rs.10,000/- per
month finding fault with the order of High Court.
9. In the present case, right from the beginning it is the
case of the petitioner that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per
month working as Lorry Driver. He has also filed his Heavy
Motor Driving Licence. Facts of the present case differ. As
claimed by the petitioner / claimant, his income can be
considered as Rs.6,000/- per month.
10. In the said circumstances, it can be reasonably
concluded that an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month can be
taken as the income of the deceased.
11. Further, PW2 - doctor examined on behalf of claimant,
specifically stated that there was 40% disability due to post
traumatic stiffness of right shoulder and discomfort of right
ankle joint. In the said condition he cannot continue to
pursue his profession as Driver. Stiffness of right shoulder
and discomfort of right ankle joint would totally come in the
way of driving. Therefore, the permanent disability can be
considered as 40%.
12. Therefore the loss of future income on account of 40%
disability comes to Rs.6,04,800/-.
Actual income of the claimant Rs.6,000 p.m.
Add: Future prospects (40%) Rs.2,400
____________
Loss of income per month Rs.8,400/-
Since the petitioner is aged 38 years the relevant multiplier
'15'. Loss of earnings due to 40% disability :
= 8,400 x 12 x 40/100 x 15
= 6,04,800/-.
13. Further, the compensation granted by the Tribunal
towards medical bills, pain and suffering, transportation,
attendant charges and extra nourishment is enhanced.
Medical expenditure Rs.70,000/-, pain and suffering
Rs.25,000/-, transportation Rs.5,000/-, attendant charges
Rs.15,000/- and extra nourishment Rs.10,000/-.
14. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.7,29,800/-
Loss of earnings due to 40% disability Rs.6,04,800
Medical expenses Rs. 70,000
Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000
Transportation Rs. 5,000
Attendant charges Rs. 15,000
Extra nourishment Rs. 10,000
_____________
Rs.7,29,800/-
_____________
15. Accordingly, MACMA is allowed and the compensation
granted by the Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced from
Rs.85,000/- to Rs.7,29,800/-with interest @ 7.5% on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization
payable by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, within a period of
six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
claimant has to pay the deficit Court fee or the Tribunal may
deduct the amount required for the purpose of Court fee from
the amount awarded to the claimant after respondents
deposits the amount. On such deposit, the appellant/
claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount without
furnishing any security.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending
in this appeal shall stand closed.
__________________
K. SURENDER, J
April 22, 2024
PN
