Telangana High Court
Valadas Somaiah , Somulu vs G.Anjaneyulu And Another on 10 January, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
M.A.C.M.A.NO.126 OF 2015
JUDGMENT:
Heard learned counsel Sri N.Mukunda Reddy for the appellant/petitioner and Sri A.Agastya Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.2-insurance company.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-petitioner dissatisfied with the award passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl.District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, 'Tribunal') in O.P.No.704 of 2009, dated 03.04.2013 and thereby seeking for enhancement of compensation.
3. The appellant herein is the petitioner, respondent No.1 herein is respondent no.1-owner of the crime vehicle and respondent no.2 herein is respondent no.2-insurance company before the Tribunal. For convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.
4. The brief factual matrix of the present appeal is as under. 4.1. On 23.07.2007, while the petitioner was travelling in Auto bearing registration No.AP-27-W-1063 (hereinafter referred to LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 2 crime vehicle) from Thungaturthy to Nakrekal and when they reached the outskirts of Korlapahad, the driver of the auto drove the auto in rash and negligent manner and lost control over it and the auto turned turtle and as a result, petitioner sustained serious injuries along with other inmates. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Area Hospital, Nakrekal and later, shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Nalgonda. Thereafter, petitioner took treatment in NIMS and Yashoda Hospital and again in Government Hospital, where his left leg ankle was amputated. Later, in a private hospital at Suryapet, the doctors amputated his leg upto knee due to serious injuries sustained in the accident. 4.2. The Police registered a case against the driver of the crime vehicle and later filed charge sheet vide CC No.452 of 2007 on the file of JFCM, Nakrekal.
4.3. It is contended that petitioner was aged 21 years, hale and health, and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month as Male Nurse on contract basis in Government Hospital Area Hospital, Nakrepal and contributing the same to his family; that he incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment, that due to accident, LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 3 he was permanently disabled and he is unable to do any work and lost his source of income for the remaining part of the life. 4.4. It is further contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of crime vehicle and therefore, the petitioner sought compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
5. The respondent No.1-owner of the crime vehicle remained ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurance company filed counter denying the narration of the petitioner with respect to the manner of occurrence of accident, the age, income and avocation of the petitioner and further contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of crime vehicle, and that driver of the auto was not having valid driving license and therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation and finally, prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues:
1) Whether the claimant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of auto bearing No.AP-27-
W-1063 ?
LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 4
2) Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom ?
3) To what relief?
7. In order to substantiate the case, on behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined, however, copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1.
8. The Tribunal, on due consideration of the material and evidence placed on record, came to conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.4,06,200/- towards compensation to the petitioner payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with costs and interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Tribunal further directed the 2nd respondent to deposit the said amount within two months from the date of the order.
9. During the course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have granted the compensation as prayed in view of grievous injuries and disability sustained by the petitioner; that Tribunal ought to have LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 5 considered that petitioner was in hospital more than two years for treatment and the same was not considered by the Tribunal; and also the disability of 65% as per Ex.A6-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board in assessing the just compensation. However, the Tribunal erred in awarding meager amounts towards injuries, pain and suffering, attendant charges etc. and finally, prayed for enhancement of compensation.
10. In support of the contention, learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sidram v. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance company Limited and another 1.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company submitted that the Tribunal had rightly awarded the compensation towards injuries sustained by the petitioner and the grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable and no case is made out warranting interference by this Court with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration:
1
(2023) 3 SCC 439 LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 6
12. There is no dispute with regard to the income of the petitioner. Therefore, since the age of the petitioner is below 40 years and a self-employed, 40% of the income has to be added to the actual income of the petitioner towards future prospects as per the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi 2. Thus, the total income of the appellant would come to Rs.5,600/- (Rs.4,000/- + 1600/-) per month.
13. With regard to other contention of learned counsel for appellant/petitioner that Tribunal failed to award compensation towards 65% permanent disability, it is pertinent to note that on behalf of the petitioner, P.W.2-Dr.Gangasani Venkataramana Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon was examined and according to him, amputation was done initially upto ankle and later, it was upto knee level, which leads to permanent disability. According to the evidence of P.W.3-Dr.I.Kameshwar, who is the Civil surgeon and Orthopedic Surgeon and the Member of District Medical Board, petitioner sustained 65% permanent disability and to that effect, he issued Ex.A6-disability certificate. Though they were cross- 2 (2017) 16 SCC 680 LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 7 examined, nothing was elicited to discard their evidence. Further, in Ex.A2-charge sheet, it was specifically mentioned that operation was conducted on 25.07.2007 and upto the left leg ankle, the removal was done by the Medical Officers. Later, amputation was done upto knee level in the year 2009, which is evident from the evidence of P.W.3. However, the Tribunal had not properly considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 with regard to the disability sustained by the petitioner and awarded 30% disability only and therefore, the same needs consideration.
14. In Jagdish v. Mohan and others 3, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"8. In assessing the compensation payable, the settled principles need to be borne in mind. A victim who suffers a permanent or temporary disability occasioned by an accident is entitled to the award of compensation. The award of compensation must cover among others, the following aspects:
(i) Pain, suffering and trauma resulting from the accident;
(ii) Loss of income including future income;
(iii) The inability of the victim to lead a normal life together with its amenities;
(iv) Medical expenses including those that the victim may be required to undertake in future; and
(v) Loss of expectation of life.
3
2018 (3) ALD 55 (SC) LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 8
9. In Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [Laxman v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 756 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1095 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 108 : (2011) 12 Scale 658] , this Court held :
(SCC p. 762, para 15) "15. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that if the victim of an accident suffers permanent or temporary disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the pain, suffering and trauma caused due to the accident, loss of earnings and victim's inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."
10. In K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [K. Suresh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2012) 12 SCC 274 : (2013) 2 SCC (Civ) 279 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 638] , this Court adverted to the earlier judgments in Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh [Ramesh Chandra v. Randhir Singh, (1990) 3 SCC 723 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 512] and B. Kothandapani v. T.N. STC Ltd. [B. Kothandapani v. T.N. STC Ltd., (2011) 6 SCC 420 : (2011) 3 SCC (Civ) 343 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 1002]. The Court held that compensation can be granted for disability as well as for loss of future earnings for the first head relates to the impairment of a person's capacity while the other relates to the sphere of pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life by the person himself.
11. In Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd. [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 :
(2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] , this Court adverted to the earlier decisions in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd. [R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) (P) Ltd., (1995) 1 SCC 551 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 250] , Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka [Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences v. Prasanth S. Dhananka, (2009) 6 SCC 1 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 688] , Reshma Kumari v.
Madan Mohan [Reshma Kumari v. Madan Mohan, (2009) 13 SCC 422 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 143 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 1044] , Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 :
(2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] , and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] and held thus : (Govind Yadav case [Govind Yadav v. New India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 10 SCC 683 : (2012) 3 SCC (Civ) 1082 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 82 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 422] , SCC p. 693, para 18) LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 9 "18. In our view, the principles laid down in Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [Arvind Kumar Mishra v.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 10 SCC 254 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 153 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1258] and Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar [Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343 : (2011) 1 SCC (Civ) 164 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 1161] must be followed by all the Tribunals and the High Courts in determining the quantum of compensation payable to the victims of accident, who are disabled either permanently or temporarily. If the victim of the accident suffers permanent disability, then efforts should always be made to award adequate compensation not only for the physical injury and treatment, but also for the loss of earning and his inability to lead a normal life and enjoy amenities, which he would have enjoyed but for the disability caused due to the accident."
These principles were reiterated in a judgment of this Court in Subulaxmi v. T.N. STC [Subulaxmi v. T.N. STC, (2012) 10 SCC 177 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1100 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1] delivered by one of us, Justice Dipak Misra (as the learned Chief Justice then was)."
15. In Sidram (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"113. Before we close this matter, it needs to be underlined, as observed in Pappu Deo Yadav [Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 752] that courts should be mindful that a serious injury not only permanently imposes physical limitations and disabilities but too often inflicts deep mental and emotional scars upon the victim. The attendant trauma of the victim's having to live in a world entirely different from the one she or he is born into, as an invalid, and with degrees of dependence on others, robbed of complete personal choice or autonomy, should forever be in the Judge's mind, whenever tasked to adjudge compensation claims. Severe limitations inflicted due to such injuries undermine the dignity (which is now recognized as an intrinsic component of the right to life under Article 21) of the individual, thus depriving the person of the essence of the right to a wholesome life which she or he had lived, hitherto. From the world of the able bodied, the LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 10 victim is thrust into the world of the disabled, itself most discomfiting and unsettling. If courts nit-pick and award niggardly amounts oblivious of these circumstances, there is resultant affront to the injured victim. (See Pappu Deo Yadav [Pappu Deo Yadav v. Naresh Kumar, (2022) 13 SCC 790 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 752])."
16. In view of the above discussion, material and evidence on record, and legal position, in considered opinion of this Court, the injuries sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioner to the extent of 65% has to be taken into consideration while computing compensation.
17. This Court assessed the income of the petitioner at Rs.67,200/- per annum (Rs.5,600/- x 12). Thus, the loss of earnings due to the disability would be 65% of Rs.67,200/-, which comes to Rs.43,680/- per annum. As the age of the petitioner at the time of the accident was 21 years, the proper multiplier would be '18'. Therefore, the loss of future earnings due to disability would be Rs.7,86,240/- (Rs.43,680/- x 18). Further, the petitioner is entitled to interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as against 6% awarded by the Tribunal.
LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 11
18. The other contentions raised by the learned counsel for appellant/petitioner with regard to awarding of compensation on other counts, needs no interference by this Court since the Tribunal had rightly assessed and awarded the amount on each count.
Conclusion:
19. In view of the above discussion, the compensation amount is recalculated as under:
Sl.No. Head Compensation awarded
1 Loss of earnings due to Rs.7,86,240/-
disability
2 Injuries Rs. 28,000/- (Rs.20,000/- + 8000/-)
3 Medical expenses Rs. 75,000/-
4 Loss of earnings Rs. 30,000/-
5 Attendant charges Rs. 6,000/-
6 Extra nourishment Rs. 5,000/-
7 Transportation Rs. 3,000/-
Total compensation to be Rs.9,33,240/-
paid:
20. In the result, Appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award passed by the Tribunal insofar as compensation amount is concerned, is modified enhancing the compensation amount from LNA,J MACMA No.126 of 2015 12 Rs.4,06,200/- to Rs.9,33,240/-, which shall carry interest at the rate 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, subject to payment of court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are directed to deposit the above compensation amount within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order after adjusting the amount, if any, already deposited. On such deposit, the appellant/petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications if any shall stand closed.
__________________________________ LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY,J Date:10.01.2025 kkm