Telangana High Court
D Devadanam vs K Rama Rao on 20 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU
MACMA NO.299 OF 2019
JUDGMENT:
Being aggrieved by the order dated 23-11-2018 in
MVOP.No.402 of 2016 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal (for short 'MACT') Cum I Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil
Court, Secunderabad, where under, his petition filed under
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of
Rs.10,00,00/- was partly allowed by the tribunal awarding a
sum of Rs.8,77,000/- with interest @ 7.5%, the petitioner in
the above referred MVOP has filed this Civil Miscellaneous
Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short
'M.V. Act') and sought for enhancement of the compensation
on the following grounds.
2. The tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of
Doctors, who were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and injury
certificate marked as Ex.A7 which clearly shows the appellant
herein suffered 80% of the disability due to the amputation of
left leg below the knee and wrongly considered the disability
2 SSRN, J
as 50% and awarded insufficient compensation. The tribunal
failed to appreciate the evidence with regard to actual income
of the appellant and assessed the same as Rs.9,000/- per
month though there is evidence to believe that he was
earning Rs.15,000/- per month. The appellant has claimed
that in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court between
'P.Shiv Kumar Vs. BMPC', the income of a painter can be
assessed as Rs.15,000/- to Rs.16,500/- per month and if the
same is considered, the appellant could have been awarded
more than Rs.20,00,000/-. The tribunal failed to appreciate
that the appellant requires an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- for
further operations, but the same was not considered by the
tribunal. He has also claimed that the tribunal did not
consider the evidence properly and failed to award
appropriate compensation for future medical bills,
transportation charges, thereby, sought for enhancement of
the compensation.
3. As could be seen from the material averments
made by the appellant in the above referred MVOP, it seems
on 14-10-2015, at about 8.30 p.m., while he was going to his
3 SSRN, J
house, near Sai Baba Temple Centre, Ponnuru, the driver of a
Lorry bearing No.AP 07 TC 5189 by driving the same in high
speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed him and
when he fell down, ran over his leg, due to which he suffered
grievous injuries.
4. Therefore, the appellant filed MVOP No.402 of
2016 against the driver and owner of the lorry as well as the
insurance company from which a policy was obtained by the
owner.
5. Out of the three respondents, the Insurance
Company alone contested the petition, whereas, respondents
No.1 and 2 remained ex parte.
6. The appellant herein was examined as PW.1 and
he has examined Dr.V.V.Narayana Rao as PW.2 and
Dr.P.Kiran Kumar as PW.3 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. The
respondent-insurance company did not adduce any oral
evidence but marked a copy of policy as Ex.B1. The tribunal
having appreciated the pleadings and evidence, accepted the
contentions of the appellant that the accident took place due
to the rash and negligent driving by the above referred lorry
4 SSRN, J
driver and having accepted the evidence of PWs.1 to 3,
assessed the monthly income of appellant as Rs.9,000/- per
month and in spite of the evidence of PWs.2, 3 that the
appellant suffered 80% of permanent disability, considered
the same as 50% functional disability and assessed an
amount of Rs.7,02,000/- as loss of earnings and awarded a
sum of Rs.8,77,000/- by adding Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medicines and investigations, Rs.60,000/- towards pain and
sufferance, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges and
Rs.10,000/- towards food and extra-nourishment. The
respondent-insurance company did not file any appeal
challenging the above order.
7. There is no dispute about the accident in which
the appellant herein received grievous injury and amputation
of his left leg below the knee. PWs.2 and 3 proved Exs.A1 to
A7 and also deposed before the Court that in view of the
accident which caused a crush injury to left leg resulted
amputation of the leg below the knee. Even though, the
evidence placed before the Court indicates that the appellant
herein was a labourer, the tribunal has considered that since
5 SSRN, J
the amputation was below the left knee, assessed the
disability as 50%. In fact being a labourer when once there
was amputation of left leg definitely it would have impact on
the life style and he may not be in a position to attend even
labour work as he was able to do previously.
8. In the Judgment between 'Sri Anthony alias
Anthony Swamy Vs. The Managing Director, K.S.R.T.C.'
in Civil Appeal Nos.2551 of 2020, the Hon'ble Apex Court
while considering the similar case, where in, left leg of the
appellant therein was amputated, awarded a sum of
Rs.11,97,300/-. In the above referred judgment, the
evidence through PW.3 shows that in view of the amputation
of left leg, the functional disability of the appellant therein
was assessed as 75% and total body disability at 37.5%. The
Hon'ble Apex Court while observing that the above said
disability rendered the appellant permanently in capable of
working as a painter or to do any manual work, considered
that he is entitled to compensation for loss of future earnings
basing on his 75% permanent physical functional disability
and recalculated the compensation. Reference was made to
6 SSRN, J
the judgment between 'Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and
another' 1, and 'Nagarajappa Vs. Divisional Manager,
Oriental Insurance Company Limited' 2.
9. There is evidence before the Court to accept that
the appellant herein in view of the crush injury lost his left leg
below the knee portion. Therefore, even though the Medical
Officer gave a certificate with the said injury caused 80%
disability, in view of his employment as a labourer may not be
in a position to secure an appropriate job.
10. Therefore, the tribunal could have considered this
aspect while computing the compensation. Since the
respondent-insurance company did not file any appeal
challenging the award of compensation under the other
heads, it is just and necessary to see whether the
compensation awarded by the tribunal towards loss of
earnings requires any modification. In view of the findings of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment
considering the employment of the appellant herein and the
injury suffered by him, the disability can be assessed as 75%
2011 (1) SCC 343
2011 (13) SCC 323
7 SSRN, J
permanent physical functional disability. Therefore, the
appellant is entitled to the following amount as compensation
towards loss of earnings:
11. The notional income of the appellant at Rs.9,000/-
per month and Rs.1,08,000/- per annum. In view of the age
of the appellant being 50 at the time of accident, the relevant
multiplier is '13'. Therefore, loss of earnings as
Rs.10,53,000/- (Rs.1,08,000 X 13 X 75%), Rs.60,000/-
towards pain and sufferance, Rs.1,00,000/- towards
medicines and investigation, Rs.5,000/- towards food and
Rs.10,000/- towards extra-nourishment.
12. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The
compensation is enhanced from Rs.8,77,000/- to
Rs.12,28,000/- @ 7.5% from the date of accident till the
entire amount is realized. As a consequence thereof, the
respondents No.2 and 3 shall deposit the entire compensation
amount with interest and costs, after deducting the amount if
any paid by them, within a period of eight (8) weeks from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit,
the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same in terms of
8 SSRN, J
the award of the Tribunal. The rest of the impugned order
holds good. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous applications if any, are
closed.
________________________
SAMBASIVA RAO NAIDU, J
20th March, 2024
PLV
