Akkala Yadagiri , Yadaiah vs C.Rama Rao
2024 Latest Caselaw 4492 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 4492 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 November, 2024

Telangana High Court

Akkala Yadagiri , Yadaiah vs C.Rama Rao on 20 November, 2024

        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO

                  M.A.C.M.A.No.1132 of 2009

JUDGMENT:

Aggrieved by the award dated 30.01.2009 in O.P.No.1922

of 2007 passed by the XXII Additional Chief Judge -cum- Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Criminal Court at Hyderabad

(herein after referred as "Tribunal"), the appellant has filed this

appeal for enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. No

representation on behalf of respondent No.2. Sri A.Rama Krishna

Reddy, learned counsel, panel counsel of respondent No.2

Insurance Company, who is readily available in the Court was

appointed to appear on behalf of respondent No.2.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. On 04.06.2007, the appellant along with others travelling

in a Tractor Trolley belonging to one Muttavarapu Ashwani

proceeding from Gundannapalli to Gauraram village limits, one

lorry bearing No. AP 10 V 2002 came with high speed in rash and

negligent manner and dashed the tractor trolley, due to which, it

was turned turtle and the appellant along with others received JSR, J MACMA_1132_2009

grievous injures and he was admitted in NIMS hospital. The

appellant and one K.Karunakar Reddy sustained grievous

injuries. The concerned police, Gauraram registered a case in

Crime No.38 of 2007 against the driver of the lorry. The appellant

is working as a labourer and used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month

and due to accident, he suffered pain and mental agony and not

doing leg works. The appellant filed OP No.1922 of 2007 claiming

compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- under various heads. The

Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.62,000/-. Aggrieved by

the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:

4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that due to

the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries and he was

admitted in the NIMS hospital as an in-patient from 04.06.2007

to 01.07.2007. There is fracture of right femur degloving injury to

left leg and foot with chip fracture lateral condyle tibia and

fracture of head and left fibula and percentage of the disability

assessed to 40%. The appellant filed the disability certificate

under Ex.A8 to prove said disability and PW.2 doctor was

examined on behalf of the appellant. The Tribunal without taking JSR, J MACMA_1132_2009

into consideration of the evidence of PW.2, awarded meager

amount of Rs.62,000/-. The Tribunal below has calculated the

income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- per month. He submitted

that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Ramachandrappa Vs.

Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance 1 has considered the

monthly income of the daily wage labourer at Rs.4,500/- without

there being any evidence. In such circumstances, the Tribunal

below ought to have consider the income of the appellant at

Rs.4,5000/- per month.

4.2 He further submitted that the appellant filed Ex.A6

medical bills for Rs.22,762/-, the Tribunal awarded only

Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and also awarded meager

amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Hence, the

appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation.

5. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:

5.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No.2 insurance company contended that the Tribunal

has rightly passed the impugned judgment awarding an amount

(2011) 13 SCC 236 JSR, J MACMA_1132_2009

of Rs.62,000/- and the appellant is not entitled for enhancement

of compensation.

6. Analysis of the case:

This Court considered the rival submissions made by the

respective parties and perused the record. It is an undisputed

fact that the appellant sustained grievous injuries in the accident

due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry of

respondent No.1 and he was shifted to NIMS hospital wherein he

was treated as in-patient from 04.06.2007 to 01.07.2007 and he

spent an amount of Rs.22,762/- towards medical expenses and

the appellant filed Ex.A6 medical bills to prove said factum.

However, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/-

towards medical expenses only without giving any reasons.

Hence this Court of the view that the appellant is entitled for the

above said amount of Rs.22,762/-. In so far as, the loss of

income of the appellant is concerned, as per the principle laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramachandrappa

(supra), the income of the appellant who is the daily labourer is to

be taken at Rs.4,500/- per month even in the absence of any

evidence. Since the appellant was aged about 28 years at the JSR, J MACMA_1132_2009

time of accident, the appropriate multiplier in the light of the

judgment of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport

Corporation 2 would be "17". Though the appellant filed Ex.A8

disability certificate claiming his disability as 40%, the appellant

has not examined the Doctor, who treated him, on the other

hand, examined one Dr.Ch.Sulapani as PW.2, who has not given

any treatment to the appellant. However, taking into

consideration of the injuries sustained by the appellant i.e.,

fracture to his right femur degloving injury to left leg and foot with

chip fracture lateral condyle tibia and fracture of head and left

fibula, the Tribunal ought to have consider the disability of the

appellant as 20%. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view

that if the disability of the appellant is considered as 20%, he is

entitled an amount of Rs.4,500 x 12 x 17 x 20/100 = 1,83,600/-