Telangana High Court
Golla Laxman ,Laxmaiah vs Ravinder Reddy And Another on 22 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- VII Additional
District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan, in
M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2001, dated 14.06.2005, the appellant/claim
petitioner preferred 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 brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a
petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming
compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries
sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
23.09.2001. As per the claim petitioner, on 23.09.2001, when the
petitioner was going on his bicycle to the Market Committee for
Hamali work along with other hamalies and when they reached
near Market Committee yard, one Bus belonging to the 1st
respondent, came from opposite direction at high speed in a rash
and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to which he
sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to
Government Hospital, Pitlam, from there to Head Quarters
MGP,J
Hospital, Nizamabad. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case
and remained exparte.
4. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the material
averments of the petition, wage, income, manner of accident and
there is no rash and negligence on part of the Bus driver and that
the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claim
petitioner and that the compensation claimed is excess and
exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the
following issues:-
(i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and
negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-11V-3693
by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If
so, to what just amount and against whom
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself was examined as
PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.
7. On behalf of Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no oral
or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and
documents available on record, had awarded an amount of
MGP,J
Rs.39,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from
the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the
said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed
the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd
respondent- Insurance Company.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant
is that though the claim petitioner had proved his case by
adducing oral and documentary evidence and also proved the
injuries sustained to him by examining PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon,
but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had
awarded meagre amount and hence prayed to allow the appeal by
enhancing the compensation amount.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent-
Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after
considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation
for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is,
Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires
interference of this Court?
MGP,J
POINT:
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents
filed by the petitioner. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR shows that a case
has been registered against the driver of the Bus Bearing No.AP-
11V-3693 and the Police after conducting thorough investigation,
filed charge sheet under Ex.A3. Ex.A2-Copy of medical certificate
shows that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and
three simple injuries. In order to prove the same, he got
examined PW2. PW2, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed
that on 07.05.2004, he examined the petitioner and assessed the
disability @ 30% and the disability certificate issued by the Medical
Board, Nizamabad, under Ex.A6, was also attested by him and
bears his signature. He further stated that the petitioner was also
examined by another Orthopaedic Surgeon at Government
Hospital, Nizamabad.
14. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that Ex.A6 is not valid
for legal purpose and stated that if the petitioner undergoes
rigorous physiotherapy, there are chances in decrease of disability
and he categorically admitted that the petitioner can do all types of
works. The learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence of
PW2 by stating that there is no evidence showing continuation of
treatment between the date of accident and the date of
examination of the petitioner before issuance of disability
MGP,J
certificate and no x-ray was also obtained before issuing the said
disability certificate. As there is wide gap between the date of
accident and date of issuing Ex.A6-Disability certificate, the
learned Tribunal by discarding the evidence of PW2, had awarded
an amount of Rs.30,000/- for three grievous injuries, a sum of
Rs.6,000/- towards three simple injuries and Rs.3,000/- towards
pain and suffering, which in total comes to Rs.39,000/- as
compensation to the appellant.
15. As per PW2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, there is chance of
decrease in disability if the petitioner undergoes rigorous
physiotherapy. That itself shows that the entire disability may not
be cured. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to
consider the disability of the petitioner @ 25% as he is working as
Hamali which is a strenuous work.
16. Though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance
Company argued that the disability cannot be taken into
consideration, but they have not placed any oral or documentary
evidence in support of their contention. Hence, the same cannot
be considered.
17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the
record, the age of the claim petitioner is 35 years and is working as
Hamali. Though he stated that he is earning Rs.6,000/- per
MGP,J
month, but no income proof was filed evidencing the same. Under
these circumstances, this Court, considering the date of accident
i.e. on 23.09.2001 and also occupation of the petitioner as Hamali,
is inclined to fix the income of the petitioner @Rs.3,500/- per
month. Since the appellant was 35 years old at the time of the
accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines
laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport
Corporation 1. As mentioned supra, the disability is taken @ 25%.
Hence, the total loss of income incurred by the appellant due to
said disability comes to Rs.1,68,000/-(Rs.3,500 x 12 x 16 x 25%).
Also, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant,
the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- for
three grievous injuries, a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards three simple
injuries and Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, which this
Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all, the
appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-.
18. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned,
this Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 reduces the
rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per
annum.
2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35
MGP,J
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.39,000/- to
Rs.2,07,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5%
p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by
the respondents within a period of one month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is
entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security.
There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Dt.22.02.2024
ysk
MGP,J
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
Dt.22.02.2024
ysk
