Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy vs S. Madduleti Reddy Anr. on 18 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI
****
M.A.C.M.A.No. 1566 of 2006
Between:
Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,
R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Appellant
And
1. S.Madduleti Reddy,
S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,
R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 18.01.2023
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters / Journals? Yes/No
3. Whether His Lordship wish to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No
DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J
2
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
+ M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006
% 18.01.2023
Between:
Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy,
S/o.Venkata Rami Reddy, Aged 35 years, Agriculturist,
R/o.Koilkuntla Village and Mandal, Kurnool District.
... Appellant
And
1. S.Madduleti Reddy,
S/o.Madduleti Reddy, Rig Owner,
R/o.T.B.Road, Allagadda, Kurnool District.
2. The New India Assurance Company Limited,
Rep.by its Divisional Manager, Kurnool. ... Respondents
! Counsel for Appellant : Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy
^ Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu
Ms.T.V.Sridevi
< Gist:
> Head Note:
? Cases referred:
1. (2022) 1 SCC 317
2. (2020) ACJ 1042 (SC)
3. (1879) LR 5 QBD 78
4. 1963 2 WLR 1359
5. (1965) 1 ALL ER 563
6. 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC)
7. 2022 ACJ 2122
8. 2011 ACJ 1 (SC)
9. 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC)
10. (2003) 2 SCC 274
This Court made the following:
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA
M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 of 2006
JUDGMENT:
This appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short "the Act") has been preferred by the appellant- claimant, challenging the Award dated 22.02.2006, in M.V.O.P.No.575 of 2003 delivered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum- V Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal (for short „the Tribunal"), granting compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon, from the date of the petition till the date of realization, to the petitioner-injured against the 1st & 2nd respondents jointly and severally, on account of the injuries sustained in a road traffic accident at Koilkuntla Town.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.
3. The factual context of the case is as under:
a) A 43-year-old Chinna Obaiahgari Mohan Reddy was a Commission Agent and landlord. At the time of the accident, the claimant was getting an annual income of more than Rs.1,00,000/-, as per the income tax returns filed before the Income Tax Department. On 27.02.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., 4 while the petitioner was returning to his house on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 21 D 8729, after attending a function, and when he reached near the bus stand at Koilkuntla Town, the offending vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 belongs to the 1st respondent driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, and hit on the rear side of his motorcycle, as a result, the petitioner-claimant fell down and sustained a fracture of the left posterior i.e., left side of the hip. Immediately, he was shifted to Balaji Nursing Home, Kurnool for treatment. The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of rash and negligent driving of the said Jeep and based on the complaint lodged by the petitioner-claimant, Koilkuntla Police, registered a case in Crime No.16 of 2003 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and issued F.I.R and after completion of investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted against the accused driver for having committed an offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and Section 134 (a) & (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act and the claimant Ch.Mohan Reddy filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.4,75,000/-, but restricted the claim to Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal, on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said road traffic accident.5
b) The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, did not contest the matter.
c) The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed a counter contending inter alia that the accident did not take place near the bus stand at Koilkuntla and it took place somewhere in Kurnool Town, due to the hit by an unidentified vehicle. It is further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. It is further contended that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. It is further contended that this respondent is not at all responsible for the alleged accident and is not liable to pay the compensation and prayed to dismiss the petition.
d) Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 resulting in injuries to the petitioner?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation?
And if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?
3) To what relief?
6
e) During the trial, in order to establish his claim, the
injured-claimant was examined himself as P.W.1, Dr.B.V.Subba Reddy, Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated for replacement of the hip, were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 respectively and C.Obula Reddy, who shifted the injured to the hospital for treatment, was examined as P.W.4 besides marking Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Exs.X.1 to X.3 on behalf of the petitioner. K.Prabhakara Rao, who was the Branch Manager of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, was examined as R.W.1, and Ex.B.1 was got marked.
(f) The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and Exs.A.1 to A.8, Exs.X.1 to X.3, and Ex.B1, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 by its driver and passed the impugned Award granting compensation of Rs.2,05,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum and with proportionate costs to be paid by the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company.
g) On appreciation of evidence, the following compensation was awarded by the Tribunal by applying multiplier „15‟. 7
S.No. Heads of compensation Amount of
compensation awarded
1 Loss of Income for six months Rs.20,000/-
2 Compensation for pain and Rs.20,000/-
suffering
3 Medical and Transport Rs.75,000/-
expenses
4 Permanent disability and loss Rs.90,000/-
of future income
Total Rs.2,05,000/-
(h) Aggrieved by, and dissatisfied with the said award, the
injured/claimant, being the appellant, preferred the present appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant would submit that, considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal ought to have awarded higher compensation. It was further submitted that the income of the injured was taken on the lower side by the Tribunal which ultimately resulted in the grant of lesser compensation. It is further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the income tax returns filed by the appellant-claimant for the assessment year 2002-03, definitely, the appellant-claimant would have got more compensation than the awarded amount by the Tribunal. It was further urged that the compensation under various conventional heads granted by the Tribunal is very lesser resulting in prejudice to the case of the appellant-claimant. Therefore, the figures and multiplier 8 applied by the Tribunal are not justified and warrant the interference of this Court for enhancement of the compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company would submit that, on proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal had rightly awarded a just and fair compensation to the appellant. He would further submit that the figures and multiplier applied by the Tribunal and the amount of compensation awarded, were absolutely justified. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal does not warrant any interference in the appeal. The learned counsel, therefore, urges the Court for dismissal of the appeal.
6. In the light of the above rival arguments, the point for determination in this appeal is:
"Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, in the facts and circumstances of the case or requires enhancement?"
7. POINT: Considering the above submissions of learned counsels representing the parties, perused and assessed the entire evidence including the exhibited documents. A perusal of the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 resulting in injuries to the petitioner, to which the 9 Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.1, at Para 20 of the award, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Ex.A.4 is the Certified Copy of the Calendar and Judgment dated 05.04.2003 passed in CC.No.35 of 2003 by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Koilkuntla. When the trial Court examined the accused (driver of the offending vehicle) under Section 251 Cr.P.C., as to the allegations leveled against him in the charge sheet, the accused admitted the offence voluntarily and pleaded guilty. In view of the voluntary admission by the accused-driver, the trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 338 IPC and Rs.250/- each for the offence under Sections 134(a) and (b) read with 187 of M.V.Act, totaling the fine amount of Rs.1,500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months each. In view of the admission made by the accused-driver of the offending vehicle, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999. Therefore, I hold that it was only the driver of the offending vehicle, who was negligent in driving the 10 vehicle and causing the accident. Even assuming that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence by the date of the accident, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability in view of the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Kurvan Ansari @ Kurvan Ali & Another Vs. Shyam Kishore Murmu & Another1, wherein, at Para No.17, it was held as follows:
"..............The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident.
18. Accordingly, this civil appeal is allowed partly with directions as indicated above. No order as to costs."
8. Further, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent- insurance company would submit that the offending vehicle was not having a valid permit and violated the policy conditions. On perusal of Ex.B.1-Insurance Policy, the offending vehicle bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 was covered with the Insurance Policy by the date of the accident, as the period of insurance was from 01.08.2002 at 12.00 a.m to the midnight of 31.07.2003. 1 (2022) 1 SCC 317 11 Therefore, the plea taken by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company that the offending vehicle does not cover under the insurance policy as on the date of the accident, is found to be false. The Policy taken by the 1st respondent was in existence at the time of the accident and the same has been proved before the Tribunal by producing Ex.B.1-copy of the Insurance Policy issued by the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company. Therefore, I hold that the offending vehicle (jeep) bearing No.AP 21 D 8999 was covered with an insurance policy at the time of the accident on 27.02.2003 and there was no violation of policy conditions.
9. In so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, while determining the compensation for physical injuries, the head on which the amount of compensation to be determined, may be of two types, one is pecuniary damages and the other is non-pecuniary damages.
10. It is not out of place to state that, by making the payment of compensation for damages would not revive the claimant into his original physical position. The compensation towards wrongful act in terms of money though cannot be decided by the Court, it may be determined as per the recognized principles. In the said context, some of the English judgments are relevant, which may specify why the compensation be paid, what should 12 be the basis for determination, and what may be the reason for awarding such compensation, applying the uniform methodology for determination of compensation, comparable to the injuries, thereby a person can lead his life, though his physical frame cannot be reversed.
11. This Court perused the record and the impugned award, and finds that the learned Tribunal has not followed the contours of just compensation in this matter. The Court has to make a judicious attempt to award damages so that the claimant or the victim may be compensated for the loss suffered by him.
12. In the case of Kajal Vs. Jagdish Chand2, wherein, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has quoted pertinent observations from a very old case Phillips Vs. London & South Western Railway Co.,3 as under:
"You cannot put the plaintiff back again into his original position, but you must bring your reasonable common sense to bear, and you must always recollect that this is the only occasion on which compensation can be given. The plaintiff can never sue again for it. You have, therefore, now to give him compensation once and for all. He has done no wrong, he has suffered a wrong at the hands of the defendants and you must take care to give him full fair compensation for that which he has suffered." Besides, the Tribunals should 2 (2020) ACJ 1042 (SC) 3 (1879) LR 5 QBD 78 13 always remember that the measures of damages in all these cases "should be such as to enable even a tortfeasor to say that he had amply atoned for his misadventure."
13. The Hon‟ble Apex Court has further quoted pertinent observations from the case titled H. West & Son Ltd. vs. Shephard4 as under:
"Money may be awarded so that something tangible may be procured to replace something else of the like nature which has been destroyed or lost. But money cannot renew a physical frame that has been battered and shattered. All that Judges and Courts can do is to award sums which must be regarded as giving reasonable compensation. In the process there must be endeavour to secure some uniformity in the general method of approach. By common assent awards must be reasonable and must be assessed with moderation. Futhermore, it is eminently desirable that so far as possible comparable injuries should be compensated by comparable awards.
In the same case Lord Devlin observed that the proper approach to the problem was to adopt a test as to what contemporary society would deem to be a fair sum, such as would allow the wrongdoer to "hold up his head among his neighbours and say with their approval that he has done the fair thing", which should be kept in mind by the court in determining compensation in personal injury cases."
14. Lord Denning while speaking for the Court of Appeal in the case of Ward v. James5, laid down the following three basic principles to be followed in such like cases: 4
1963 2 WLR 1359 5 (1965) 1 All ER 563 14 "Firstly, accessibility: In cases of grave injury, where the body is wrecked or brain destroyed, it is very difficult to assess a fair compensation in money, so difficult that the award must basically be a conventional figure, derived from experience or from awards in comparable cases.
Secondly, uniformity: There should be some measure of uniformity in awards so that similar decisions may be given in similar cases;
otherwise there will be great dissatisfaction in the community and much criticism of the administration of justice. Thirdly, predictability:
Parties should be able to predict with some measure of accuracy the sum which is likely to be awarded in a particular case, for by this means cases can be settled peaceably and not brought to court, a thing very much to the public good."
15. From a reading of all the above Judgments, it is crystal clear that, while determining the compensation for physical injuries, the heads on which the amount of compensation are to be determined, is an extreme task. What may be the adequate amount for a wrongful act and can it be compensated by money, particularly, towards pain and suffering by an arithmetical calculation, it cannot be decided what may be the extent of the amount of money, which would represent the pain and suffering to a person. There has to be a measure of calculated guesswork and conjecture. An assessment, as best as can, in the circumstances should be made. The determination of quantum 15 must be liberal, not niggardly since the law values life and limb in a free country in generous scales.
16. In the case of K.Suresh Vs. New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,6 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"2...There cannot be actual compensation for anguish of the heart or for mental tribulations. The quintessentiality lies in the pragmatic computation of the loss sustained which has to be in the realm of realistic approximation. Therefore, Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity „the Act‟) stipulates that there should be grant of "just compensation". Thus, it becomes a challenge for a court of law to determine "just compensation" which is neither a bonanza nor a windfall, and simultaneously, should not be a pittance."
17. Applying the aforesaid principles laid down in the above- referred Judgments, now processed to assess the compensation. While assessing the compensation by the Court-Tribunal, one of the factors, which must be careful in a case like the present one, is that the claim can be awarded only once. The claimant cannot come back to the Court for enhancement of the award at a later stage praying that something extra has been spent. Therefore, the Court should have to take a liberal view of the matter while awarding compensation.
6 2012 ACJ 2694 (SC) 16
18. In the instant case, the Tribunal committed an error while awarding compensation to the claimant by taking the annual income of the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-. A perusal of Ex.A.5-Income Tax returns of the petitioner-injured at Column Nos.23 and 24, would show that the income of the petitioner is Rs.57,100/- and Rs.62,600/- respectively, and in total Rs.1,19,700/- per annum. The Tribunal ought to have taken the annual income of the injured as Rs.1,19,700/-, but committed an error by taking the annual income as Rs.40,000/-. At least the Tribunal ought to have taken 60% of the annual income out of the amount shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns. It is relevant to refer to a decision in Royal Sundaram Alliance Ins.Co.Ltd., Vs. Vinaya Udaybabu Shah and others7 wherein, at Para-33, held as follows:
"Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of argument also submitted that learned Member has wrongly relied upon the income tax returns for the financial year 2003-04 to assess the income of deceased. According to learned counsel the accident in question took place on 23.02.2003 and, therefore, the income taken for assessment of compensation should have been based on previous year‟s return."7
2022 ACJ 2122 17
19. According to the above said decision, it is crystal clear that the income tax returns have to be taken into consideration for the assessment of compensation, based on the previous year‟s returns. In the instant case, the petitioner-injured filed income tax returns for the assessment year 2002-03, and the alleged accident occurred on 27.02.2003. In view of the above said decision, the income tax returns filed by the petitioner have to be taken into consideration, while determining the compensation. This Court is of the view that 60% of the annual income shown in Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns has to be taken into consideration, which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x 60%).
20. In the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar8 the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India, held as under:
"In Raj Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court has held that award of compensation should, to the extent possible, fully and adequately restore the claimant to the position prior to the accident. A person is not only to be compensated for the physical injury, but also for the loss which he suffered as a result of such injury. This would include compensation for his inability to lead a full life, enjoy those normal amenities which he would have enjoyed but for the injuries, as also his inability to earn as much as he used to earn or could have earned. The WP(C) No.7856/2010 Page 5 Supreme Court further laid down the heads under 8 2011 ACJ 1 (SC) 18 which the compensation is to be awarded in personal injury cases as under:
"(5) The heads under which the compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following: Pecuniary Damages (Special Damages)
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure.
(ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising:
(a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment;
(b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability.
(iii) Future medical expenses.
Non-pecuniary damages (General damages):
(iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries.
(v) Loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage)
(vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
In routine personal injury cases, compensation will be awarded only under heads (i), (ii) (a) and
(iv). It is only in serious cases of injury, where there is specific medical evidence corroborating the evidence of the claimant, that compensation will be granted under any of the heads Iii) (b), (iii), (v) and
(vi) relating to loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability, future medical expenses, loss of amenities (and / or loss of prospects of marriage), and loss of expectation of life."
21. In the light of the above Judgments, it is well settled that the income on the date of the accident, ought to have been taken into consideration, after deducting the income tax payable by the claimant. Admittedly, as the accident occurred on 19 27.02.2003, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not right in taking into consideration 1/3rd of the income tax returns of the petitioner for the assessment year 2002-03. At least, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken 60% of the annual income of the claimant under Income Tax Returns for the assessment year 2002-03.
22. As regards the disability suffered by the petitioner- claimant for his whole life, in view of the evidence of P.W.3- Dr.Jai Ramachandra Pingle, who treated and operated on the claimant deposed that he was working as Senior Orthopedic Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The petitioner-injured was admitted in the hospital on 22.02.2004 due to pain in the left hip joint, a fracture in the left hip, and that in the year 2003, he was operated with A O screws and X-ray showed a vascular nerve of the left hip with orthocities. He further deposed that the injured was operated on 23.02.2004 and total hip replacement uncemented was done and the injured was discharged on 26.02.2004. The injured had severe pain in the hip and joint defect in the patient, there was a collapse head femoral due to „AVN‟ femur. The hip joint was replaced. P.W.3 identified Ex.A.8-discharge summary card and he also issued Ex.X.1-Emergency Certificate. The medicines in Ex.A.6 bills of 20 Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, were all prescribed by him (P.W.3). Further, he stated that, as a result of the injuries sustained, an operation of total hip replacement with an artificial joint was done. Therefore, the injured has a permanent disability of 30%.
23. Therefore, as per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, the petitioner-claimant sustained permanent disability of 30%. But, the petitioner did not file the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board or issued by the Doctor, except the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor. In the absence of any disability certificate, it cannot be considered that the petitioner-injured sustained 30% disability. However, this Court is of the view that 15% of disability has to be taken, as per Raj Kumar‟s case (supra).
24. To award compensation, it is the duty of the Court to ensure that the petitioner-claimant is paid "just compensation". No amount of money can compensate the injured for the injuries suffered by him. The injured can never be put back to the same position, however, the compensation has to be determined in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Act refers to the determination of payment of "just compensation" to the injured.
25. In the facts of this case, looking to the beneficial purpose of the enactment of the Motor Vehicles Act, and further having 21 regard to the principles laid down in the aforesaid Judgments, the Tribunal failed to consider the gravity of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and thereby, committed an illegality in awarding a meager amount of compensation to the claimant under the head of "loss of future earnings".
26. In the case of Sarla Verma Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation9, while determining the multiplier applicable with reference to the age of the petitioner-injured, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, held as follows.
21. We therefore hold that the multiplier to be used should be as mentioned in column (4) of the Table above (prepared by applying Susamma Thomas, Trilok Chandra and Charlie), which starts with an operative multiplier of 18 (for the age groups of 15 to 20 and 21 to 25 years), reduced by one unit for every five years, that is M-17 for 26 to 30 years, M-16 for 31 to 35 years, M-15 for 36 to 40 years, M- 14 for 41 to 45 years, and M-13 for 46 to 50 years, then reduced by two units for every five years, that is, M-11 for 51 to 55 years, M-9 for 56 to 60 years, M-7 for 61 to 65 years and M-5 for 66 to 70 years.
27. In Ex.A.5-Income Tax Returns, the total annual income of the petitioner-injured is Rs.1,19,700/- ( Rs.57,100 + Rs.62,600), out of which, this Court has taken 60% as his annual income, which comes to Rs.71,820/- (Rs.1,19,700 x 60%). The petitioner-injured suffered permanent disability of 30% as stated 9 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC) 22 supra, but in the absence of a disability certificate, this Court assessed the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner-injured as 15%. In Ex.A.8-Discharge Summary Card issued by Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, the age of the petitioner-injured is „43‟ years at the time of the accident. But, the learned Tribunal committed an error and illegality in taking the annual income of the petitioner-injured as Rs.40,000/-, and also in taking 15% of the annual income i.e., Rs.6,000/-. The Tribunal applied the multiplier „15‟ for the age group of 41 - 45 years, and awarded an amount of Rs.90,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 15) towards permanent disability and loss of future earnings, which is not in accordance with the proposition laid down by Hon‟ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma‟s case (supra). In the instant case, the multiplier „14‟ should be applied.
28. In the light of the principles laid down in Raj Kumar‟s case (supra), the calculation of compensation under the head of loss of future earnings is as follows:
a) Annual income before the accident : Rs.71,820/-
b) Loss of future earnings per annum (15% of the prior annual income) : Rs.10,773/-
c) Multiplier applicable with reference
to the age group of 41- 45 years : 14
d) Loss of future earnings
(Rs.10,773 x 14) : Rs.1,50,822/-
23
29. This Court finds that the Tribunal has not awarded appropriate compensation towards permanent disability and loss of future earnings. A reading of the Tribunal‟s award, makes it appear that the Tribunal‟s approach does not accord at all with current judicial opinion. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,822/- under the head of loss of future earnings.
30. As can be seen from the award passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner-injured was under medical care from the date of the accident. Later he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad on 22.02.2004, and on 23.02.2004 he was operated for total hip replacement of hip joint and discharged on 26.02.2004.
Considering the nature of the injuries and the period of treatment undergone by the petitioner-injured, a meager amount of Rs.20,000 was awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering. The loss of income of the petitioner-injured from the date of the accident till the date of hip replacement of left hip joint operated on 23.02.2004 is for nearly 12 months and after the hip replacement definitely, he would have lost the income for at least six months which needs to be just. Therefore, a total period of 18 months has to be calculated on monthly income.
31. This Court has taken the annual income of the petitioner- injured as Rs.71,820/-, as stated above and the monthly income 24 of the petitioner-injured would be Rs.5,985/- (Rs.71,820/12 = Rs.5,985/-). Thus, the loss of income for a period of 18 months would be Rs.1,07,730/-(Rs.5,985 x 18). The Tribunal has committed an error in awarding an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings for six months. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,07,730/- under the head of loss of earnings during the period of treatment i.e., for 18 months.
32. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a meager amount of Rs.75,000/- towards medical and transport expenses. Since the petitioner-injured was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, and was inpatient for four days, and underwent surgery for hip replacement, definitely, he would have spent more amount than the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The petitioner deposed that he spent Rs.1,59,000/- towards the medical expenditure, he restricted his claim to only Rs.50,000/- and Rs.25,000/- towards transport expenses, in total Rs.75,000/-, as observed by the Tribunal in Para No.26 of the award. The claimant who is not well educated, is not supposed to be that much of meticulous so as to maintain the bills for any future use. The claimant has remained in Balaji Nursing Home, Kurnool and later he was admitted in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, and operated for hip replacement and he 25 must have incurred that much of expenses, and this Court‟s interference is required on the compensation awarded towards medical and transport expenses. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,75,000/- under the head of medical and transport expenses, which is just and reasonable.
33. The Tribunal has committed illegality in awarding a meager amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The petitioner-claimant suffered from pain and suffering for not less than 18 months from the date of the accident till operated for hip replacement as stated supra. Taking into consideration of the pain and suffering already undergone by the petitioner and to be suffered in the future, mental and physical shock, hardship, inconvenience, and discomforts due to the hip replacement, the amount of compensation needs to be enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- under the head of pain and suffering.
34. The learned Tribunal has not awarded the amount under the head of extra-nourishment. When the petitioner-injured underwent hip replacement, extra nourishment needs to be provided to the petitioner-injured for a speedy recovery. As such, an amount of Rs.25,000/- needs to be awarded under the head of extra-nourishment.
26
35. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation aimed at providing relief to the claimant. The compensation is only the means to grant some support for the loss suffered with which he is expected to live and the amount awarded under the above heads has to be commensurate with the injury and its impact on the claimant.
36. In Sarla Verma‟s case (supra) the Hon‟ble Apex Court, while elaborating the concept of „just compensation‟ observed as under:
"Just compensation is adequate compensation which is fair and equitable, on the facts and circumstances of the case, to make good the loss suffered as a result of the wrong, as far as money can do so, by applying the well settled principles relating to award of compensation. It is not intended to be a bonanza, largesse or source of profit."
37. On an overall re-appreciation of the pleadings, material on record, and the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court and this Court in the aforesaid decisions, I am of the definite opinion that the appellant-claimant is entitled to enhancement of compensation as modified and re-calculated above and given in the table below for easy reference.
27
Heads of compensation Amount of
S.No. compensation
awarded
1 Loss of future earnings Rs. 1,50,822/-
2 Loss of earnings during the period of Rs. 1,07,730/-
treatment
3 Medical and Transport expenses Rs. 1,75,000/-
4 Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,50,000/-
5 Extra-nourishment Rs. 25,000/-
Rs. 6,08,552/-
(-) Compensation already awarded by the Rs. 2,05,000/-
Tribunal
Rs. 4,03,552/-
38. The amount of compensation enhanced by this Court in appeal shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount.
39. As per the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh and others10, under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that the compensation could be awarded only upto the amount claimed by the claimant. In an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record, if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, the Tribunal may pass such an award. There is no embargo to award compensation more than that claimed by the claimant. Rather it is obligatory for the Tribunal and Court to award "just compensation", even if it is in the excess of the amount claimed. 10
(2003) 2 SCC 274 28 The Tribunals are expected to make an award by determining the amount of compensation that should appear to be just and proper. The compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal, against the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, is not just and reasonable, and the claimant is entitled to more compensation, as stated supra, though he might not have claimed the same at the time of filing of the claim petition.
40. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal warrants interference by enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,05,000/- to Rs.6,08,552/-.
41. In the result, the appeal is allowed, enhancing the compensation from a sum of Rs.2,05,000/-(Rupees Two lakhs Five thousand only) to Rs.6,08,552/- (Rupees Six lakhs Eight thousand Five hundred and Fifty Two only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum and costs from the date of the petition till the date of realization, payable by the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally.
(ii) The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against it. 29
(iii) The appellant-claimant shall pay the requisite Court- fee in respect of the enhanced amount awarded over and above the compensation claimed.
(iv) The appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount with accrued interest.
(v) The impugned award of the learned Tribunal stands modified to the aforesaid extent and in the terms and directions as above.
As a sequel, interlocutory application(s) pending for consideration, if any, shall stand closed.
JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA Date: 18.01.2023 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh 30 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA M.A.C.M.A.No.1566 OF 2006 18.01.2023 L.R.Copy to be marked Dinesh