Telangana High Court
The New India Assurance Company Ltd vs D. Rathna Raju And Ano on 27 March, 2024
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER
M.A.C.M.A Nos. 2534 of 2012 and 268 of 2017
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. M.A.C.M.A.No.2534 of 2012 is filed by the claimant, not being
satisfied with the compensation granted by the Tribunal in O.P.No.1866
of 2009 dated 24.10.2011.
2. M.A.C.M.A.No.268 of 2017 is filed by the insurance company
questioning compensation granted to the appellant.
3. Since both the appeals are filed questioning the very same order,
both the appeals are disposed by way of this Common Judgment.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter will be referred
to as arrayed in the Original Petition before the Tribunal.
5. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he is an Engineering
graduate and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month on the date of accident.
On 17.11.2007 at about 10.45 p.m, while the petitioner along with three
others were proceeding on a TVS XL motor cycle bearing No.AP 25C 9594
from Kamareddy towards Nizamsagar side, a lorry bearing No.AP 13T
6931 came in high speed. In a rash and negligent manner hit the vehicle
of the petitioner from behind, due to which, he received injuries. He was
treated as inpatient and his right leg was amputated above knee level.
According to the petitioner, he required an artificial limb and claimed
compensation for injuries and also for the reason of his right leg being
amputated on account of the accident.
6. Initially, the claim was for Rs.7.00 lakhs and later sought
enhanced amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards compensation. The
Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence, granted
compensation as follows:
a) Permanent disability Rs.6,48,000-00
b) Artificial limb Rs.2,42,000-00
c) Pain and suffering Rs. 50,000-00
d) Medical expenses Rs. 72,271-00
e) Extra-nourishment and
transportation Rs. 5,000-00
Total Rs.10,17,271-00
________________
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the
compensation granted is grossly inadequate. The petitioner had lost his
right leg and unable to do any job. He relied on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Vasanthi and another v.
M/s.Adhiparasakthi Engineering College and another (2023 ACJ 100).
In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of death,
considered the notional income of the deceased who was an MBA student
as Rs.33,000/- and granted compensation. He also relied on the
judgment in the case of Yashodamma S. Vs. Regional Manager,
Reliance General Insurance Company Limited (2023 ACJ 605). It is a
case of death of final year MCA student. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the notional income at Rs.20,000/- per month. Accordingly,
counsel for the petitioner submits that the income of the petitioner
should be considered as Rs.30,000/- per month and accordingly the
compensation has to be calculated and the total compensation that may
be granted by this Court at Rs.60,97,671/-under various heads.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance
Company would submit that even according to the version of the
petitioner, there were three pillion riders and accordingly, there was
contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner and others. For the
said reason, only 50% of the compensation ought to have been directed
to be paid for contributory negligence.
9. The Tribunal held that there were no violations in the policy
conditions of the lorry insured by the 2nd respondent/insurance company
and accordingly directed payment of compensation.
10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohammed Siddique
and another v. National Insurance Company Limited and others
reported in (2020) 3 Supreme Court Cases 57), held in that particular
case when the motor cycle with two others were triple riding, the car
came from behind and hit the motor cycle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that such pillion riding above the permitted members will not in
itself make him guilty of contributory negligence unless it is established
that such triple riding had contributed to the accident or to the impact of
the accident on the victim.
11. In the present case also, the motorcycle was hit from behind as
such, extra pillion rider will not have any bearing on the compensation.
It cannot be said that two wheeler had contributed to the accident when
the vehicle had hit them from behind in a rash and negligent manner.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Rs.30,000/-
should be considered as income and accordingly compensation should be
paid, cannot be accepted. Even according to the claim made in the lower
Court, it was specifically mentioned that the injured was earning
Rs.5,000/- and initially compensation of Rs.7.00 lakhs was sought.
Again the claim was increased to Rs.10.00 lakhs. However, the Tribunal
granted Rs.10,17,271/-.
12. The judgments cited by the appellant are in cases of death, wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court had considered notional income. In the
present case when it was specifically claimed that he was earning
Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has not committed any error in
considering the income as Rs.5,000/- and accordingly, granting
compensation. Compensation cannot be a windfall nor meager. In
accordance with the claim of the injured, the Tribunal had correctly
granted compensation and does not require any interference.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, both the appeals fail and
dismissed. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending,
shall stand closed.
__________________
K.SURENDER, J
Date: 27.03.2024.
kvs
