Telangana High Court
Marepally Chandrasekhar vs M. Krishna on 26 March, 2025
HONOURABLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1805 OF 2010
JUDGMENT:
Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 25.08.2010
(hereinafter will be referred as 'impugned order') passed by the
learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - XVI Additional
Chief Judge - cum - II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad (hereinafter will be referred as 'Tribunal') in
O.P.No.11 of 2008, the appellant, who is the petitioner/claimant
before the learned Tribunal, preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are
referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case as can be seen from the record
are as under:
a) The petitioner filed claim petition under Section 166 of the
Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-
against the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 for the injuries sustained
by him in the road traffic accident. The reason assigned by the
petitioner for sustaining injuries is that on 27.09.2007 at about
8.10 AM the petitioner (rider) and his brother (pillion rider) were
MGP,J
traveling on the motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 09 EV
TR/6095 and in the meanwhile a Water Tanker bearing
registration No.AP 12 U 9891 (hereinafter will be referred as
'crime vehicle') being driven by its driver in rash and negligent
manner with high speed came in opposite direction and hit the
motorcycle of the petitioner. As a result, the right wheel of the
said tanker ran over the right hand of the petitioner due to
which petitioner received fracture injuries to his right hand.
b) A case in Crime No.331 of 2007 of Ramachandrapuram
Police Station was registered for the offence under Section 338
of the Indian Penal Code.
c) The petitioner was shifted to Sai Durga Hospital, wherein
he was given first aid and thereafter he was shifted to NIMS
Hospital, wherein his right upper hand was amputated upto
shoulder. The petitioner suffered immense pain due to the
injuries of the amputation and he spent huge amounts for
treatment, transportation and other instrumental expenses.
d) The petitioner is a driver by profession and used to earn
Rs.5,000/- per month and now he has become handicapped
and disabled to drive any vehicle and thereby he is deprived of
MGP,J
his earnings. The petitioner is unmarried and thereby he lost
his marriage prospects.
e) The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of
the crime vehicle by its driver and thus, the petitioner claimed
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- from the respondent Nos.1 and
2, who are the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle
respectively.
4. Before the learned Tribunal, in reply to the above petition
averments, the respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas
respondent No.2 filed counter denying the petition averments
including the manner of the accident, nature of injuries,
treatment and medical expenditure and contended that the
accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the
injured/petitioner and prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. In order to establish the claim before the learned
Tribunal, the petitioner examined PWs 1 and 2 and Exs.P1 to
P10 were marked on his behalf. On the other hand, no oral
evidence was adduced on behalf of respondent No.2, however,
Ex.B1 copy of the insurance policy was marked.
MGP,J
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the oral and
documentary evidence on record, passed the impugned order
awarding Rs.3,30,000/- as compensation to the petitioner.
Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal, the petitioner preferred the present Appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard both sides and perused the material available on
record including the grounds of Appeal.
8. It is to be seen that the respondent No.2/Insurance
Company did not prefer any Appeal to set aside the impugned
order. There is no dispute with regard to the subsistence of
Ex.B1 insurance policy at the time of accident. There is no
dispute with regard to the manner of the accident, as the
learned Tribunal by relying on the evidence of PW1 (injured) and
documentary evidence under Exs.P1 and P2 i.e., certified copies
of FIR and charge sheet, answered the issue No.1 holding that
the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
crime vehicle by its driver.
9. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal erred in taking
the income of the petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per annum as
MGP,J
against the claim of the petitioner at Rs.5,000/- per month. It
is further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the learned Tribunal failed to assess the disability though
the court below accepted the amputation of right hand of the
appellant upto shoulder which resulted in permanent disability
and that the learned Tribunal failed to award any compensation
under the head of injuries.
10. Admittedly, the petitioner has not filed any income proof
to establish that he was drawing Rs.5,000/- per month as
driver. The petitioner did not even file his driving license to
prove that he is a professional driver. In the absence of any
such material, the learned Tribunal considered notional income
of Rs.15,000/- per annum. However, the notional income as
arrived by the learned Tribunal is appearing to be on much
lower side. Consider the year of the accident and since no
income proof is filed by the petitioner, this Court is inclined to
consider the monthly income at Rs.2,500/- per month. A
perusal of the claim petition discloses that it was filed in the
year 2008, the petitioner claimed to be aged about 24 years. As
can be seen from Ex.A2 charge sheet, the petitioner was alleged
to be aged about 22 years as on the date of accident. As per the
MGP,J
decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1 the
relevant multiplier for the person aged between 21 to 25 years is
'18' .
11. The learned Tribunal by multiplying the annual income of
Rs.15,000/- with the multiplier '17' straight away awarded
Rs.2,55,000/- without taking into consideration the disability.
12. The petitioner got examined the doctor, who has provided
treatment to him as PW2. PW2 deposed that as per Ex.A6 the
disability was issued by him with permanent disability at 90%.
However, for amputation of the right hand up to the shoulder,
the percentage of disability, as assessed against the entire body,
is approximately 70%. Thus, the percentage of the disability
would come to Rs.3,78,000/- (Rs.2,500/- x 12 x 18 x 70%).
13. The other contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding less
amount of compensation under the head 'pain and suffering'.
14. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- under the head
'pain and suffering'. The petitioner alleged to have sustained
crush injury to his right hand. Hence, the learned Tribunal
awarded Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability. Hence,
1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
MGP,J
considering the year of the accident and the nature of injuries
sustained by the petitioner, the compensation amount of
Rs.25,000/- (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.20,000/-) awarded by the learned
Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the petitioner is appearing
to be just and reasonable.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
learned Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount for medical
expenditure, transportation and other incidental charges.
16. As seen from the petition averments, the petitioner
claimed an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards medical and nursing
expenses and relied upon Ex.P7. However, a perusal of Ex.P7
discloses that the petitioner incurred Rs.38,098/- towards
medical expenses. There is no other documentary evidence to
establish that the petitioner has incurred more than the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the head
'medical expenses'. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal rounded
off Rs.38,098/-mentioned in Ex.P7 to Rs.40,000/- and awarded
the same under the head 'medical expenses'. Thus, this Court
is not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned
Tribunal so far as the compensation awarded under the head
'medical expenses'.
MGP,J
17. It is to be seen that as per the claim petition, the claimant
claimed an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards transportation
charges. Apart from that the learned Tribunal awarded
Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. Since the learned
Tribunal awarded the compensation amount as sought by the
petitioner under transportation charges, the above contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is untenable.
18. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal has not awarded
any compensation under the head 'attendant charges'. Since
the petitioner sustained crush injuries, he requires an
attendant to discharge his day to day activities during his bed
ridden period. Hence, this Court is inclined to award
Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges.
19. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances, this
Court is of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed by
the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified to the extent of
above observations.
20. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing
the compensation amount from Rs.3,30,000/- to Rs.4,58,000/-,
which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of
petition till the date of realization. The respondent Nos.1 and 2
MGP,J
are jointly and severally liable to deposit the compensation
amount within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the petitioner is
entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount awarded
to him without furnishing any security. There shall be no order
as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand
closed.
_______________________________
JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI
Date: 26.03.2025
AS
