Telangana High Court
Golla Laxman ,Laxmaiah vs Ravinder Reddy And Another on 22 February, 2024
HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI
M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2018
JUDGMENT:
1. Dissatisfied with the compensation amount awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Nizamabad at Bodhan, in M.V.O.P.No.1422 of 2001, dated 14.06.2005, the appellant/claim petitioner preferred the present appeal seeking for enhancement of compensation.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter be referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the claim petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.09.2001. As per the claim petitioner, on 23.09.2001, when the petitioner was going on his bicycle to the Market Committee for Hamali work along with other hamalies and when they reached near Market Committee yard, one Bus belonging to the 1st respondent, came from opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to which he sustained multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Pitlam, from there to Head Quarters 2 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 Hospital, Nizamabad. Respondent No.1 did not contest the case and remained exparte.
4. Respondent No.2 filed its counter denying the material averments of the petition, wage, income, manner of accident and there is no rash and negligence on part of the Bus driver and that the accident occurred only due to the negligence of the claim petitioner and that the compensation claimed is excess and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.
5. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-
(i) Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP-11V-3693 by its driver?
(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what just amount and against whom
(iii) To what relief?
6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant himself was examined as PW1 and got examined PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A8.
7. On behalf of Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.
8. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and documents available on record, had awarded an amount of 3 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 Rs.39,000/- as compensation with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Dissatisfied with the said compensation amount, the appellant/claim petitioner has filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation.
9. Heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent- Insurance Company.
10. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the claim petitioner had proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidence and also proved the injuries sustained to him by examining PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon, but the learned Tribunal, without considering the same, had awarded meagre amount and hence prayed to allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.
11. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for 2nd respondent- Insurance Company argued that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded reasonable compensation for which interference of this Court is unwarranted.
12. Now, the point that emerges for consideration is, Whether the order of the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court?
4
MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 POINT:
13. This Court has perused the entire evidence and documents filed by the petitioner. A perusal of Ex.A1-FIR shows that a case has been registered against the driver of the Bus Bearing No.AP- 11V-3693 and the Police after conducting thorough investigation, filed charge sheet under Ex.A3. Ex.A2-Copy of medical certificate shows that the petitioner sustained three grievous injuries and three simple injuries. In order to prove the same, he got examined PW2. PW2, who is an Orthopaedic Surgeon, deposed that on 07.05.2004, he examined the petitioner and assessed the disability @ 30% and the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Nizamabad, under Ex.A6, was also attested by him and bears his signature. He further stated that the petitioner was also examined by another Orthopaedic Surgeon at Government Hospital, Nizamabad.
14. In the cross-examination, PW2 stated that Ex.A6 is not valid for legal purpose and stated that if the petitioner undergoes rigorous physiotherapy, there are chances in decrease of disability and he categorically admitted that the petitioner can do all types of works. The learned Tribunal has not considered the evidence of PW2 by stating that there is no evidence showing continuation of treatment between the date of accident and the date of examination of the petitioner before issuance of disability 5 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 certificate and no x-ray was also obtained before issuing the said disability certificate. As there is wide gap between the date of accident and date of issuing Ex.A6-Disability certificate, the learned Tribunal by discarding the evidence of PW2, had awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- for three grievous injuries, a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards three simple injuries and Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, which in total comes to Rs.39,000/- as compensation to the appellant.
15. As per PW2, Orthopaedic Surgeon, there is chance of decrease in disability if the petitioner undergoes rigorous physiotherapy. That itself shows that the entire disability may not be cured. Under these circumstances, this Court is inclined to consider the disability of the petitioner @ 25% as he is working as Hamali which is a strenuous work.
16. Though learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company argued that the disability cannot be taken into consideration, but they have not placed any oral or documentary evidence in support of their contention. Hence, the same cannot be considered.
17. Now, coming to the quantum of compensation, as per the record, the age of the claim petitioner is 35 years and is working as Hamali. Though he stated that he is earning Rs.6,000/- per 6 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 month, but no income proof was filed evidencing the same. Under these circumstances, this Court, considering the date of accident i.e. on 23.09.2001 and also occupation of the petitioner as Hamali, is inclined to fix the income of the petitioner @Rs.3,500/- per month. Since the appellant was 35 years old at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16' as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation 1. As mentioned supra, the disability is taken @ 25%. Hence, the total loss of income incurred by the appellant due to said disability comes to Rs.1,68,000/-(Rs.3,500 x 12 x 16 x 25%). Also, considering the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant, the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.30,000/- for three grievous injuries, a sum of Rs.6,000/- towards three simple injuries and Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, which this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, in all, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,07,000/-.
18. Insofar as the interest awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, this Court by relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others 2 reduces the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal from 9% to 7.5% per annum.
1 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 2 2013 ACJ 1403 = 2013 (4) ALT 35 7 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018
19. In the result, the Appeal is partly allowed by enhancing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.39,000/- to Rs.2,07,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by the respondents within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellant is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE M.G. PRIYADARSINI Dt.22.02.2024 ysk 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.2224 of 2018 HON'BLE SMT.JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI M.A.C.M.A.No.2224 of 2018 Dt.22.02.2024 ysk