Telangana High Court
Konam Shankar Rao vs M/S. Super Steel Gencies on 20 November, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
M.A.C.M.A No.777 OF 2009
JUDGMENT:
The appellant No.1 has filed this appeal against the
Order and Decree dated 01.03.2007 in O.P.No.470 of 2004
passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal
(III District Judge, I.F.T.C), Nalgonda, whereunder the
tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- towards
compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as
against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the
injuries received by him in the accident occurred on
26.07.2003.
2. Heard Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for
the appellants and Sri G.Nasaraiah, learned counsel for
respondent No.2 and perused the entire material on record.
3. It appears from the record that during pendency of
the appeal, appellant No.1 died and pursuant to the order
dated 25.11.2014 in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.3892 of 2014,
appellant No.2 was brought on record as legal heir of
appellant No.1.
4. Brief facts of the case:
4.1. On 26.07.2003, at about 06:00 p.m., while the
appellant No.1 was proceeding towards Kattangur in his
mini van bearing No.AP-24-T-8834, the lorry bearing
No.AP-11-W-5475, which was proceeding from Vijayawada
side towards Hyderabad side, driven by its driver in a rash
and negligent manner at high speed, dashed the mini van
from its rear side, due to which the appellant No.1 received
grievous injury on his right eye. Immediately after the
accident, appellant No.1 was shifted to Government
hospital and took treatment as inpatient. Thereafter he was
shifted to Sarojini Eye hospital, where he could not get
relief, as such he had been shifted to L.V.Prasad Eye
Hospital for better treatment. Inspite of it, he could not
recover fully and lost his eyesight, thereby suffered
disability to an extent of 30%.
4.2. As soon as the accident has taken place, appellant
No.1 has lodged a complaint against the lorry driver and
the same was registered as Crime No.68 of 2003, under
Section 338 of IPC on the file of Kattangur Police Station,
Nalgonda.
5. Submissions of learned counsel for the appellant:
5.1. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contended that prior to the accident, the appellant No.1
used to work as driver and used to earn an amount of
Rs.4,000/- per month and due to the accident, he received
grievous injury on his right eye and he was unable to
attend his work and he suffered 30% disability. He further
contended that the appellant No.1 in L.V.Prasad Eye
Hospital took treatment as inpatient from 30.07.2003 to
05.08.2003 and had spent more than Rs.60,000/- towards
medicines and treatment. He further submits that the
tribunal without properly considering the evidence adduced
by the appellant No.1, awarded meager amount of
Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation. He further submits
that the Hon'ble Apex Court in 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 the present case, as
(2011) 13 SCC 236
the appellant No.1 is aged about 39 years at the time of
accident and used to work as driver, an amount of
Rs.4,500/- per month can be considered as his income.
6. Submissions of learned counsel for respondent No.2:
6.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent
No.2 contended that the tribunal after considering the oral
and documentary evidence on record has rightly awarded
an amount of Rs.1,30,000/- and the appellant No.1 is not
entitled for enhancement of compensation.
7. Analysis of the case:
7.1. Having considered the rival submissions made by the
respective parties and after perusal of the material available
on record, it is undisputed fact that due to rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, the accident has
taken place and the appellant No.1 sustained grievous
injury on his right eye and he suffered disability to an
extent of 30%. In proof of the same, appellant No.1 has filed
Ex.A4, i.e., disability certificate. As the appellant No.1 has
received grievous injury to his right eye, he could not
continue in his profession as driver. Hence, this Court
deems it appropriate to consider the disability as 100%.
7.2. In such circumstances, this Court is of the
considered view that as per the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case, the
appellant No.1 is entitled for an amount of Rs.4,500/- per
month. Hence the annual income of the appellant No.1
comes to Rs.54,000/-(Rs.4,500x12). As the appellant was
aged about 39 years, the appropriate multiplier as per
column No.4 of the table given in the judgment of the Apex
Court in "Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport
Corporation 2," is '15', which comes to Rs.8,10,000/-
(Rs.54,000 x 15). As per the judgment of the Apex Court
in V.Mekala v. M.Malathi and another 3, the
appellant No.1 is entitled for an amount of
Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, the
appellant No.1 is granted total compensation amount of
Rs.8,20,000/-(Rs.8,10,000+ Rs.10,000). As appellant No.1
(2009)6 SCC 121
2014 (5) ALD 42 (SC)
died during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 is
permitted to withdraw the said amount.
8. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, enhancing the
compensation amount awarded by the tribunal from
Rs.1,30,000/- to Rs.8,20,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs twenty
thousand only). The enhanced compensation amount shall
carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim
petition till 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 the judgment. On such deposit, appellant No.2 is
entitled to withdraw the entire amount without furnishing
any security. However, the appellant No.2 is directed to pay
the deficit court fee on the enhanced amount.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall
stand closed.
______________________________
JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
Date : 20.11.2024
Vsl
