Telangana High Court
Puramshetty Venu vs Chiluveru Janardhan And Anr on 20 November, 2024
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2304 of 2009
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the award dated 03.01.2007 in O.P.No.502
of 2005 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal -cum- IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court),
Karimnagar (herein after referred as "Tribunal"), the appellant
has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation
amount.
2. When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is brought to
the notice of this Court that Sri Venkateshwar Varanasi, learned
counsel for the appellant is no more. On 12.09.2024, this Court
has directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant. Inspite
of service of notice, the appellant has not entered appearance.
Similarly, inspite of the service of notice to the respondents, they
also not entered appearance. Hence, this Court to render
substantial justice to the parties, appointed Sri N.Chandra
Shekar, learned counsel as Amicus Curie to assist the Court on
the ground that the matter is pertains to the year 2009.
JSR, J
MACMA_2304_2009
3. Brief facts of the case:
3.1. On 03.12.2004, the appellant along with one Pathem
Chandraiah were proceeding on his TVS bearing No.AP-15-D-
7660 towards their village from Karimnagar, when they reached
the outskirts of Kothapally village near Velichala X Road at about
05.45 p.m., one RTC bus bearing No.AP-11-Z-1439 came from
opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner with high
speed, being driven by respondent No.1 and dashed against the
appellant vehicle. As a result, the appellant sustained injuries
on his right hand, right leg and all over the body. Immediately,
the appellant lodged a complaint before the Karimnagar Rural
Police Station and he was shifted to the Government Hospital,
karimnagar and thereafter, referred to NIMS, Hyderabad, there
he was treated as an in-patient from 04.12.2004 to 18.12.2004.
The appellant was doing agricultural work and milk business
and due to the injuries sustained by him, he could not continue
his works. Thus, The appellant filed OP No.502 of 2005 claiming
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under various heads, but the
Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.71,278/-. Aggrieved by
the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
JSR, J
MACMA_2304_2009
4. Submissions of learned Amicus Curiae:
4.1. Learned Amicus Curie would submit that the appellant
was admitted as in-patient in hospital from 04.12.2004 to
18.12.2004 and thereafter, for the purpose of surgery, he was
again admitted in the hospital on 21.03.2005 and he was
discharged on 04.04.2005. To establish the said factum, the
appellant was examined PWs.2 to 4 and filed Exs.A7, A8, A10 to
A13, without considering the same, the Tribunal below awarded
only an amount of Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings.
4.2. He further submitted that in spite of the appellant
claimed an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards transportation
charges, the Tribunal below awarded meager amount of
Rs.2,000/-. Though the appellant claimed an amount of
Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, the Tribunal below
awarded Rs.2,000/-. The appellant claimed an amount of
Rs.50,000/- towards medicines and treatment charges and filed
medical bills under Ex.A6. However, the Tribunal awarded only
an amount of Rs.24,278/-. He also submitted that in so far as
pain and suffering, the appellant claimed an amount of
Rs.10,000/-, the Tribunal below awarded the meager amount of
JSR, J
MACMA_2304_2009
Rs.5,000/-. The appellant awarded meager amount of
Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings, though the appellant
claimed an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, the appellant is
entitled for enhancement of compensation.
5. Analysis of the case:
5.1. This Court considered the submissions made by the
Amicus Curie and perused the record. It is an undisputed fact
that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, the
appellant has sustained grievous injuries to his right hand, right
leg and all over the body. The appellant claimed that at the time
of accident, he was earning an amount of Rs.6,000/- per month.
The Tribunal below has not awarded any amount towards loss of
earnings on the ground that the appellant has not adduced any
evidence. In Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram
Alliance 1, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the
monthly income of the daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/- without
there being any evidence. Hence, the appellant is entitled to
claim an amount of Rs.4,500/- towards his monthly income.
The record further discloses that the Doctor advised the
(2011) 13 SCC 236
JSR, J
MACMA_2304_2009
appellant to take rest for a period of six (06) months while
issuing discharge summary. Hence, this Court is of the view that
the appellant is entitled for loss of earnings for a period of ten
(10) months, though he claimed for a period of three (03)
months. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the
appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.45,000/- @ Rs.4,500/-
per month for ten months towards loss of earnings. Similarly,
the appellant is also entitled an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards
transportation charges, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment,
Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and treatment charges,
and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and also
Rs.50,000/- for grievous injuries. In addition to the above said
amount, as per the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of "V.Mekala vs M. Malathi and others" 2, the
appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards costs
of litigation. Thus in all, the appellant is entitled for
Rs.1,90,000/- under all counts.
6. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed in part enhancing
the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal to the
appellant from Rs.71,272/- to Rs.1,90,000/-(Rupees One Lakh
2014 (5) ALD 42 SC
JSR, J
MACMA_2304_2009
Ninety Thousand only). The enhanced compensation amount
shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till the date of realization. The enhanced amount shall
be deposited by respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally
within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of a
copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is permitted to
withdraw the entire amount without furnishing any security.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date: 20.11.2024
pld
