Telangana High Court
Rathod Vasanth Rao vs Smt. Ch. Parvatamma And Another on 13 February, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A. No.1682 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. Appellant-claimant filed this appeal against the Order and
Decree dated 14.03.2005 in O.P.No.764 of 2000 on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge,
Nizamabad, where under the Tribunal granted an amount of
Rs.12,442/- towards compensation along with interest @ 9% per
annum as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the
injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor vehicle accident
occurred on 04.09.1999.
2. The manner of accident and the injuries sustained by the
appellant-claimant are not in dispute and the appellant challenged
the impugned award only on the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into other
details other than the quantum of compensation.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company.
4. The case of the appellant is that on 04.09.1999, while the
appellant was proceeding on his motor cycle to go to Dichpally, a car
in the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner with
a high speed and dashed his vehicle due to which, the appellant
sustained simple and grievous injuries resulting in 60% disability.
5. The Tribunal having examined P.W.1/claimant and
P.W.2/Government Doctor marked Exs.A-1 to A-10 and Ex.C-1,
disability certificate and granted compensation of Rs.12,442/- only.
The reasons given for granting the said compensation are that since
no cogent evidence was filed in proof of his monthly income
Rs.1250/-p.m. was considered as his income. Further, the Tribunal
granted compensation of Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment.
6. Though the appellant did not specify the organization for
which he was working, he claims to be a free lancer. Further, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ramachandrappa vs. The Manager,
Royal Sundaram, Alliance Insurance Company Limited 1 has
considered the income of a daily wage labour at Rs.4,500/- per
month. In view of the said judgment, the income of the appellant
can be assessed at Rs.4,000/- p.m.
7. The Court declined to accept 60% disability on the ground that
the disability certificate was issued by P.W.2-Government Doctor.
The reason given for not accepting disability is that disability
certificate filed by the appellant is issued by a Government Doctor
instead of Medical Board. Admittedly, the Doctor who issued
(2011) 13 SCC 236
disability certificate i.e., Ex.C-1 is a Government Doctor working in a
Government hospital and he was also examined before the Court.
Only for the reason of not approaching the Medical Board, certificate
issued by a Government Doctor i.e, P.W.2 cannot be refused, when
Doctor himself had come to the Court and detailed in his
examination regarding disability of the claimant.
8. In the said circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to
assess the income of the claimant at Rs.4,000/- p.m. and disability
@ 60% which comes to Rs.4,89,600/- applying multiplier '17'
(4000x60%x17x12).
9. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced under various
heads as follows:-
Awarded Awarded by
Sl.No. Name of Head by trial this Court
Court
01. 60% disability - Rs.4,89,600/-
02. Grievous injury 5,000/- Rs.20,000/-
03. Simple injury Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/-
04. Loss of income for Rs.3,750/- Rs.12,000/-
three months
05. Medical expenses Rs.692/- Rs.10,000/-
06. Extra Rs.2,000/- Rs.5,000/-
nourishment
TOTAL Rs.12,442/- Rs.5,41,600/-
10. In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is
allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the
Tribunal from Rs.12,442/- to Rs.5,41,600/-. The enhanced amount
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the
entire amount of compensation, on payment of deficit Court fee. Except
the above enhancement, the award of the Tribunal shall remain same
on all other aspects. There shall be no order as to costs.
11. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No
costs.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date : 13.02.2024
dv
