Telangana High Court
P.Jangaiah vs S.Palaniappan And Anr on 24 June, 2024
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
MACMA.Nos.2746 of 2013 & 2954 OF 2016
COMMON ORDER:
MACMA.No.2746 OF 2013:
1. This appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company
questioning the award passed by the Tribunal in granting
compensation to the claimant claimant/injured in MVOP.No.231
of 2011, dt. 29.06.2013.
MACMA.No.2954 OF 2016:
2. This appeal is filed by the claimant/injured for enhancement
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.231 of
2011, dt. 29.06.2013.
3. Heard.
4. Briefly, the case of the injured before the Tribunal is that on
28.07.2010, at about 1.30 p.m., while he was going as pillion rider
when one Srinivas was riding the scooter, the offending vehicle
which is lorry was driven at high speed and in a rash and
negligent manner went in the wrong direction and dashed the
scooter on which the claimant was riding as a pillion rider. As a
result, the claimant received three fracture injuries to the legs and
injuries on the head and other parts of the body.
5. The manner in which the accident had taken place and the
liability is not disputed. However, the Insurance Company claims
that since it was head on collision, the two wheeler driver is also
at fault and accordingly, on the ground of contributory negligence,
50% ought to have been deducted from the compensation amount
by the Tribunal.
6. On the other hand, the claimant/injured argues that though
it was claimed in the petition that the injured was earning
Rs.10,000/- per month, the Tribunal committed an error in
considering only Rs.4,500/- per month as income and granting
compensation. Further, future prospects were also not considered
by the Tribunal. In the said circumstances, the income of the
claimant may be considered atleast at Rs.7,000/- and accordingly,
grant compensation in view of the Judgment of Honourable
Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v.
Pranay Sethi and others 1.
(2017) 16 SCC 680
7. The argument of the counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company that 50% has to be reduced from the compensation for
the reason of contributory negligence has no basis. It is the case of
the claimant that while they were going on the left side of the
road, the lorry came in wrong direction and dashed against the
scooter. Nothing contrary to the said version is placed by the
Insurance Company to suggest that the version of the claimant
that the lorry was coming on the wrong side of the road is
incorrect. Accordingly, the ground raised by the counsel for the
Insurance Company cannot be accepted.
8. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the
claimant with regard to income is concerned, I do not find any
infirmity with the finding of the learned Tribunal while considering
the income at Rs.4,500/- per month. It is stated that at the
relevant point of time, the claimant was working as 'Mason'.
Accordingly, I do not find any reason to consider the enhancement
of monthly income component other than what was considered by
the Tribunal.
9. Insofar as the argument of the counsel with regard to the
future prospects is concerned, as per the Judgment of the
Honourable Supreme Court in Pranay Sethis's case (supra 1)
since the claimant is a mason and is aged below 40 years, an
addition of 40% of the income of the claimant is taken towards
future prospects.
10. Then, the compensation of the claimant is as follows;
The salary of the claimant after addition of future prospects
@ 40% comes to Rs.6,300/- per month (4,500 + 40% of the
income). The disability of the claimant arrived at by the Tribunal
requires no interference. Since the claimant is aged 26 years at
the time of accident, then the Loss of earnings of the claimant is
Rs.6,80,400/- (6300 x 12 x 50% x 18).
11. Since the claimant sustained three fractures, an amount of
Rs.25,000/- for each fracture can be awarded. Then the claimant
is entitled to Rs.75,000/- towards grievous injuries. The claimant
is further entitled to an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and
suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards transportation; and Rs.25,000/-
towards extra nourishment.
12. The amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical
expenses and pharmacy bills remains unaltered. Hence the
claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,74,800/- towards
medical expenses and an amount of Rs.52,870/- towards
pharmacy bill.
13. Then, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of
Rs.11,63,070/-. (6,80,400 + 75,000 + 40,000 + 15,000 + 25,000 +
2,74,800 + 52,870).
14. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the National Insurance
Company in MACMA.No.2746 of 2013 is dismissed. The appeal
filed by the claimant in MACMA.2954 of 2016 is allowed
enhancing the compensation granted by the Tribunal from
Rs.8,92,670/- to Rs.11,63,070/- with interest @ 7.5% on the
enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization payable
by respondents 1 and 2 in the OP, jointly and severally. The said
amount shall be deposited within 6 weeks from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order and the claimant is permitted to withdraw
the amount without furnishing any security. 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 Insurance Company deposits the
amount.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in
this appeal shall stand closed.
___________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 24.06.2024
tk
