Telangana High Court
Rasamalla Anjaiah vs Jonnala Srinivas Reddy on 7 June, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.3043 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
Heard Sri Palakurthi Kiran, learned counsel for the
appellant/claimant and there is no representation on behalf of
the respondent no.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/
petitioner aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award passed by
the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District
Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in M.V.O.P.No.126 of
2010, dated 27.04.2017 and thereby seeking for enhancement of
compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner/claimant, respondent
no.1 herein is the respondent no.1-owner of crime vehicle and
respondent No.2 herein is the respondent no.2-insurance
company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties
hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under.
LNA,J
4.1. On 22.01.2014 at about 9.00 a.m., while the petitioner was
proceeding to attend his mason work in Haliya village and when
he proceeding by the side of Gandhi statue, one lorry bearing
registration No.AP-24-TB-3779 loaded with read soil came from
his back side in rash and negligent manner and dashed the
petitioner, as a result, he sustained crush injury to his left leg and
several injuries and fractures; that immediately he was shifted to
Kamala Nehru Hospital, Nagarjuna Sagar in 108-Ambulance and
thereafter, he was shifted to Sunrise hospitals, Hyderabad, where
he was treated as inpatient.
4.2. The Police, Haliya Police Station, registered a case in Crime
No.16/2014 under Section 338 of IPC against the driver of the
offending vehicle and filed charge sheet.
4.3. The petitioner has filed claim petition against owner of the
vehicle and insurance company under Section 166 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of
Rs.37,00,000/- along with interest from the date of the filing of
this petition till the date of realization.
LNA,J
4.4. It is contended that petitioner was aged about 28 years as
on the date of accident, hale and healthy and was earning
Rs.12,000/- per month by working as a mason; that on account of
accident, petitioner sustained crush injury to his left leg and his
leg was amputated and he became permanently disabled and is
not able to attend to his works.
5. The Respondent No.1-owner of offending vehicle remained
ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter
denying all the allegations made in the claim petition and further
denied the manner of accident, nature of injuries, nature of
treatment, disability suffered by the petitioner and the amount
spent and registration of the crime against the driver of the
offending vehicle. It is further contended that the claim is
excessive and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. On the basis of the pleadings, the MACT has framed the
following issues:
i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the
motor accident due to rash and negligent driving by
the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-24-TB-3779 ?
LNA,J
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the
compensation. If so, to what amount?
iii) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner,
P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A15 and Ex.C1 were
marked. On behalf of the respondent no.2, no witness was
examined, however, attested copy of policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the oral evidence
and material placed on record, came to conclusion that the
accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of
offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.15,88,000/-
along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of petition till
the date of realization. The owner of the offending vehicle and
the Insurance company i.e., respondent Nos.1 & 2 were held to be
jointly and severally liable to pay the said compensation.
9. During the course of hearing of appeal, learned counsel for
appellant/petitioner submitted that the Tribunal erred in taking
the income of the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- and also erred in not
awarding the future prospects; that Tribunal ought to have taken
LNA,J
income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/- per month as he was
working as mason; that Tribunal failed to award any amount
towards loss of amenities, and loss of expectation of life; that the
disability of the petitioner has to be considered at 100% as he
would not be liable to attend to his mason work during his
lifetime and prayed to enhance the compensation amount.
10. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for appellant
placed reliance on the following decisions:
i) Munna Lal Jain and another vs. Vipin Kumar Sharma
and others 1;
ii) Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Singh and others 2;
iii) V.Mekala vs. M.Malathi and another 3; and
iv) Sidram vs. Divisional Manager, United India
Insurance Company Limited and another 4
11. Insofar as the contention of the learned counsel for
appellants that Tribunal erred in taking the notional income of
the petitioner at Rs.6,000/- per month is concerned, as per the
record, it is contended that the petitioner was working as mason
(2015) 6 SCC 347
(2013) 9 SCC 54
(2014) 11 SCC 178
(2023) 3 SCC 439
LNA,J
and was earning a sum of Rs.12,000/- per month prior to the
accident. The appellant contended that he was working as mason
as on the date of accident and in the light of amputation of his left
leg, he cannot work as mason. Perusal of the record would show
that the contention of the appellant that he was working as
mason is not disputed by the insurance company and in fact, the
Tribunal also made categorical observation to that effect. A
mason can be categorized as skilled worker as it requires certain
amount of skill and knowledge to work as mason. The appellant
claims that he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month as mason as on
the date of accident. However, considering the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the relevant date of accident,
the inflation, devaluation of rupee, cost of living etc., in
considered opinion of this Court the notional income of the
petitioner can be taken as Rs.8,000/- per month.
12. In Sidram (supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
appellant, while referring the decisions in Jagdish and Pranay
Sethi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
LNA,J
"31. It is now a well-settled position of law that even in
cases of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a
motor accident, the claimant can seek, apart from
compensation for future loss of income, amounts for
future prospects as well. We have come across many
orders of different tribunals and unfortunately affirmed
by different High Courts, taking the view that the
claimant is not entitled to compensation for future
prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. That is not a
correct position of law. There is no justification to
exclude the possibility of compensation for future
prospects in accident cases involving serious injuries
resulting in permanent disablement. Such a narrow
reading is illogical because it denies altogether the
possibility of the living victim progressing further in
life in accident cases -- and admits such possibility of
future prospects, in case of the victim's death.
34. In Jagdish v. Mohan [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC
571 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] ,
the victim, a carpenter, suffered permanent
disablement, and his claim for compensation including
for loss of future prospects was considered by a three-
Judge Bench which included, incidentally, the Judges
who had decided Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co.
Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC
(Civ) 248 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] This Court held that :
(Jagdish case [Jagdish v. Mohan, (2018) 4 SCC 571 : (2018)
3 SCC (Civ) 102 : (2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 572] , SCC pp. 576-
77, paras 13-15)
"13. In the judgment of the Constitution Bench in
Pranay Sethi [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay
Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 248 :
(2018) 2 SCC (Cri) 205] , this Court has held that the
benefit of future prospects should not be confined
only to those who have a permanent job and would
extend to self-employed individuals. In the case of a
self-employed person, an addition of 40% of the
established income should be made where the age of
the victim at the time of the accident was below 40
years. Hence, in the present case, the appellant would
LNA,J
be entitled to an enhancement of Rs 2400 towards loss
of future prospects.
14. In making the computation in the present case, the
court must be mindful of the fact that the appellant has
suffered a serious disability in which he has suffered a
loss of the use of both his hands. For a person engaged
in manual activities, it requires no stretch of
imagination to understand that a loss of hands is a
complete deprivation of the ability to earn. Nothing--at
least in the facts of this case--can restore lost hands. But
the measure of compensation must reflect a genuine
attempt of the law to restore the dignity of the being.
Our yardsticks of compensation should not be so
abysmal as to lead one to question whether our law
values human life. If it does, as it must, it must provide
a realistic recompense for the pain of loss and the
trauma of suffering. Awards of compensation are not
law's doles. In a discourse of rights, they constitute
entitlements under law. Our conversations about law
must shift from a paternalistic subordination of the
individual to an assertion of enforceable rights as
intrinsic to human dignity. ......."
13. From the above decision, in case of self-employed person
with fixed wages, the actual income of the person must be
enhanced for purpose of computation of compensation by 40%,
where his age was below 40 years, towards future prospects. In
the case on hand, the petitioner was aged 28 years as on the date
of accident, an addition 40% of actual income of the petitioner can
be made towards future prospects.
LNA,J
14. Learned counsel for appellant also contended that Tribunal
ought to have considered the disability of the appellant at 100%
as he cannot attend to mason work with amputated leg. Perusal
of record would show that Tribunal having taken into
consideration the material placed on record i.e., Ex.A7-disability
certificate, which was issued by the District Medical Board, as per
which, the disability of the appellant was assessed as 75% and
also the evidence of Doctor, had assessed and considered the
disability of the appellant at 75%. The appellant failed to place
any material in support of his contention that his disability has to
be assessed at 100%. In considered opinion of this Court, no case
is made out to interfere with the assessment of the Tribunal in
assessing the disability of the appellant as 75% based on the
evidence, material placed on record.
15. This Court assessed the monthly income of appellant as
Rs.8,000/- and the appellant is also entitled to 40% of monthly
income towards future prospects as observed above. Thus, the
monthly earnings of the appellant comes to Rs.11,200/-
(Rs.8,000/- + Rs.3,200/-) and total compensation under the head
LNA,J
of permanent disability comes to Rs.17,13,600/- (Rs.11,200/- x 12
x 17 x 75%).
16. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that
the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.5,13,140/-,
which is the cost of artificial limb, however, the Tribunal erred in
awarding a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- only. Perusal of record would
show that P.W.2, who is the Manager of Ottobock, Balakpur,
Secunderabad and specialist in prosthetist and orthotist, deposed
that estimated cost of artificial limb is Rs.5,13,140/-. In cross-
examination, he admitted that he has not given treatment to the
appellant and the minimum cost of the limb is Rs.75,000/- and
that he has not received any quotation from appellant and also
stated that artificial limb is also available in many Government
hospitals with free of cost. Taking into consideration the evidence
of P.W.4 and also the fact that the cost of artificial limb varies
from Rs.75,000/- to Rs.5,13,140/-, the Tribunal awarded an
amount of Rs.4,00,000/- towards artificial limb and this Court
does not find any reason to interfere with the amount awarded by
the Tribunal towards artificial limb.
LNA,J
17. The compensation amount towards disability be modified
to the extent indicated above. There shall be no change with
regard to the amounts awarded by the Tribunal on other heads.
18. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation
under the following heads:
Sl.No. Particulars Amount
1 Permanent disability Rs. 17,13,600.00
2 Pain and suffering Rs. 2,00.000.00
3 Artificial limb Rs. 4,00,000.00
4 Medical expenses Rs. 50,000.00
5 Los of earnings Rs. 20,000.00
Total: Rs.23,83,600.00
19. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the
compensation from Rs.15,88,000/- to Rs.23,83,600/- with interest
at the rate of 7% p.a., from the date of the petition till the date of
realization. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 are directed to deposit the
entire compensation amount within a period of six weeks before
the Tribunal from the date of receipt of copy of this order by duly
adjusting the amounts, if any, already deposited/paid to the
appellant/petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
LNA,J
20. Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand
closed.
_________________________________
LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J
Date: 07.06.2024
kkm
