Telangana High Court
A Ajay Kumar vs M/S Kapoor Diesels Garage Pvt.Ltd., And ... on 24 April, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.584 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1829 of 2013, dated 22.04.2016, the
claim petitioner therein filed the present Appeal seeking for
enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant/petitioner
filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1983 seeking compensation of Rs.9,90,000/- for the injuries
received by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
30.04.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that on 30.04.2013 at
about 16.15 hours, when the petitioner along with his friend by
name Naveen were proceeding on a motor bike from Nandanam
Village towards Bhongir Town and when reached near
Pochammawada, one Lorry bearing No.HR-38P-8690 which was
driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in a high speed,
came behind and dashed the motor cycle. As a result, the
petitioner and his friend fell down and received grievous injuries
MGP,J
and were shifted to Area Hospital, Bhongir. Thereafter, the
petitioner was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. Police of
Bhongir Town Police Station registered a case in Crime No.125 of
2013 against the driver of the lorry bearing No.HR-38P-8690 for
the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 338 of IPC.. Due
to the said accident, the petitioner sustained Grade III compound
fracture of femur right and D-Glowing injury of right ankle and
underwent surgeries on 06.05.2013 and 13.05.2013 and had
amputation above knee for which he sustained disability @ 70%.
The petitioner further contended that prior to accident, he was hale
and healthy and used to earn Rs.9,000/- per month and used to
contribute the same for maintenance of his family who were
depending on his earnings. Due to the said accident, the petitioner
spent huge amount for medical treatment and therefore, filed the
present claim petition seeking compensation against Respondent
Nos.1 & 2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle.
4. Respondent No.1 remained exparte. Respondent No.2 filed
its counter denying the averments made in the claim petition
including, occurrence and manner of accident, rash and negligent
driving of the driver of lorry, age, income, avocation, health
condition and injuries sustained by the petitioner and contended
that the driver of the crime vehicle was not having subsisting
MGP,J
driving license at the time of accident and that the vehicle was not
road worthy and also contended that the claim of compensation is
high and Respondent No.1 had not followed Section 158(6) of
M.V.Act and hence, prayed to dismiss the claim application.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal had
framed the following issues:
1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and
negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.HR-38P-8690
causing injuries to the petitioner?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what extent and from whom?
3. To what relief?
6. In order to prove the above issues, petitioner himself was
examined as PW1 and got examined PW2, who is working as
Assistant Professor at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad and who
issued disability certificate under Ex.A6 to the petitioner and got
marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of 2nd respondent, no evidence
was adduced, but, however, Ex.B1- Copy of Insurance policy was
marked.
7. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents available on record, had partly allowed the claim
petition filed by the petitioner by awarding compensation of
Rs.8,00,000/- along with costs and interest @ 9% per annum from
MGP,J
the date of petition till the date of order and thereafter interest @
6% per annum till payment of compensation payable by both the
respondents jointly and severally.. Dissatisfied with the said
compensation amount, the appellant/petitioner filed the present
Appeal.
8. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for appellant as
well as learned Standing counsel for respondent No.2-Insurance
company. Perused the record.
9. The contentions made by the learned counsel for Appellant
are that due to 70% permanent disability, the appellant has lost
his employment and was unable to do any other work and he has
to take assistance of attender to lead his domestic life and his
marriage prospects are irreparably affected and diminished and
suffered physical and mental shock and his future career and
earning power are affected irreparably and therefore contended
that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken the loss of earning
capacity @ 100% instead of 70%. He also contended that the
learned Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the injured @
Rs.4,500/- instead of Rs.3,000/- per month and further contended
that the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded future prospects
and ought to have granted compensation under the heads of loss of
MGP,J
marriage prospects, attendant charges, transportation and future
medical expenses.
10. Per contra, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 contended
that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had
awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this
Court is unwarranted.
11. Now, the point that emerges for determination is,
Whether the order passed by the trial Court requires
interference of this Court?
POINT:-
12. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
available on record. The injured/appellant herein was examined
himself as PW1. He filed chief affidavit in lieu of his chief
examination and got marked Exs.A1 to A5 on his behalf. Ex.A1 is
the FIR in Crime No.125 of 2007 registered by Police, Bhongir
Town Police Station, Nalgonda District against the driver of the
Lorry bearing No.HR-38P-8690 wherein, the contents of the FIR are
that, on 30.04.2013 at 18.30 hours, Sri B.Shiva Shankar lodged a
complaint stating that he received information that his younger
brother B.Naveen met with lorry accident and he was admitted in
Area hospital, Bhongir and immediately, he visited the Government
MGP,J
Hospital, Bhongir where he came to know that his brother along
with K.Abhiram and A.Ajay Kumar while coming to Bhongir from
Nandanam Village on Bajaj Discovery motor cycle and when
reached Pochammawada, one lorry bearing No.AR-38P-8690 which
was driver by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came from
behind and dashed them. As a result, Naveen sustained fracture
to his right leg and rider Abhiram sustained bleeding injuries on
his face and head and another pillion rider A.Ajay Kumar also
sustained fractures to his right leg. They were immediately shifted
to Hospital in '108' Ambulance and requested to take necessary
action against the driver of the lorry. Ex.A2 is the charge sheet
filed by Sub-Inspector of Police, Bhongir Town Police Station, after
conducting thorough investigation wherein it was held that on
30.04.2013 at about 4.15 p.m., the driver of the crime lorry, while
coming into Bhongir from Nalgonda side, drove the said lorry in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed the Bajaj Discovery
motorcycle. As a result, the rider of the Bajaj Discovery motorcycle
dashed another Honda Activa Scooter.No.AP-24L-4950 and all fell
down on the road and the lorry front wheel ran over the legs of
injured persons who are appellant herein and rider of motorcycle
due to which they sustained grievous injuries. Ex.A3 is the letter of
SHO, Bhongir Town P.S. addressed to the Medical Officer,
Govt.Area Hospital, Bhongir, requesting to examine the injured and
MGP,J
to issue Medical Certificate. Ex.A4 is the Discharge card issued
by Gandhi Hospital where the appellant was diagnosed for Grade -
III Compound shaft femur lower 1/3rd and underwent amputation
of right leg and left leg eschacotomy TSSG. Ex.A5 are the medical
bills which are incurred by the appellant. Ex.A6 is the Disability
Certificate issued by Medical Board, Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad. In support of his evidence, he also got examined
PW2, who is working as Assistant Professor in Gandhi Hospital,
Secunderabad. In his evidence he deposed that on 30.04.2013, the
appellant was admitted in their hospital with Grade III compound
fracture of femer right and D-Glowing injury of right ankle and he
underwent surgeries on 06.05.2013 and 13.05.2013 and
amputation was done to his right leg above knee and he issued
Ex.A6-Disability Certificate assessing the disability @ 70%.
Though PW2 was cross-examined, nothing worthy was elicited to
disbelieve his evidence.
13. The 2nd respondent, except stating that the injured is not
entitled for compensation, did not, choose to examine any witness
on their behalf, except marking Ex.B1-Insurance policy and the
said policy covers the date of accident.
14. It is pertinent to mention that there is no dispute regarding
the occurrence of accident and injuries sustained to the appellant.
MGP,J
The only dispute is with regard to quantum of compensation.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though the
appellant stated in his evidence that he used to earn Rs.9,000/-
per month by working as a labour, but the learned Tribunal ,
without considering the same, had fixed the monthly income of the
appellant as Rs.3,000/- which is very meagre. In this regard, it is
pertinent to state that though the appellant stated that his
monthly income was Rs.9,000/-, but he failed to produce any
documentary proof to that effect. Hence, the learned Tribunal,
fixed the notional income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/-. This
Court by considering the age, occupation, date of accident and by
relying upon the decision reported in Ramachandrappa
Vs.Manager, Royal Sundaram Allianz 1 is inclined to fix the
monthly income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/-. Since the appellant
was 22 years old at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier
is '18' as per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Varma v.
Delhi Transport Corporation and another 2. Ex.A6-Disability
certificate shows that the appellant sustained 70% disability for
amputation done to his right leg above knee. Thus, by applying
relevant multiplier and by considering the percentage of disability
the total loss of income comes to Rs.6,80,400/- (4,500 x 12 x 18 x
2011(6) ALD 75 (SC)
2009 (6) SCC 121
MGP,J
70%). Apart from that, the learned Tribunal had awarded an
amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering,
Rs.2,00,000/- towards loss of limb and Rs.10,000/- towards extra
nourishment, transport and unaccounted expenditure. Thus, in
all, the appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.9,90,400/-
towards compensation.
15. As far as interest is concerned, the learned Tribunal granted
interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of
order and thereafter interest @ 6% per annum till payment of
compensation. This Court, by relying upon the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and
others 3, fix the rate of interest @ 7.5% per annum.
16. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.8,00,000/- to
Rs.9,90,400/- which is payable by both the Respondent Nos.1 & 2
jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. The enhanced amount shall carry
interest @ 7.5% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs.
3 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
17. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.24.04.2024
ysk
