Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt.P.Mangamma vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport ... on 11 December, 2019
Author: J. Uma Devi
Bench: J. Uma Devi
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J. UMA DEVI
M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2013
ORDER:
The claimant in O.P.No.136 of 2010 on the file of the learned IX Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Chittoor, has come before this Court by preferring the present appeal.
The grievance of the appellant herein is that, even after it is established by her that she is suffering from disability of 25%, on account of the injury received to occipital region of the head, due to which she lost memory, the Court below awarded minimal compensation of Rs.94,150/- and that there is no reason, as such, in the award passed by the Court below in granting such a meagre amount to her towards compensa tion in respect of the injury received due to which the disability is still persisting. As per her contention, the Court below ought to have awarded Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation and that the amount so claimed is just and reasonable. Since these being the main contentions raised by the appellant, the only question which is required to be answered by this Court is:
"whether the compensation amount of Rs.94,150/- awarded to the claimant-appellant herein is fair and reasonable?.
I have perused the award and decree passed by the Court below. It has been averred in the pleadings of the
2 JUD,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2013.
Claim Petition that on 06.12.2009 at about 1.45 p.m., while the appellant was boarding a bus bearing No.AP 11Z 3406, the bus driver started the bus negligently without noticing the signal given by the Conductor due to which the appellant fell down from the footboard and sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. She sustained injury to occipital region of the head due to which she is suffering from headache and giddiness and loss of memory and is not able to do coolie work, which she was doing prior to the accident, and that she has become disabled permanently on account of the said injury. In support thereof, she produced Ex.A2-wound certificate issued by Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy who opined that the injury sustained by the appellant herein was grievous in nature. The said doctor, who examined the claimant- appellant herein, fixed the disability at 25%. Appellant herein produced Ex.A8-Discharge Summary card wherefrom it is clear that she was admitted in SVRRGG Hospital, Tirupathi on 08.12.2009 and underwent treatment in the said hospital upto 19.12.2009.
P.W.2-Dr.A.Sudhakar Reddy, Neurosurgeon in SVRRGG hospital, on examining the appellant noticed bleeding from the nose and mouth and a contusion on occipital region of the head. Taking note of the nature of the injuries received by the claimant-appellant herein, P.W.1 assessed the disability at 25%.
3 JUD,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2013.
When the award under challenge is perused by me, a patent flaw is noticed, particularly insofar as the deduction of 1/3rd income assessed by the Court below for determination of the compensation which she is entitled to get under the head of loss of future income due to permanent disability. The learned trial Judge, having taken the view that the assessment of income of the appellant at Rs.36,000/- per annum as just and reasonable for determination of the compensation, seems to have deducted 1/3rd of such income towards her personal expenditure which is not supposed to be done in cases of injured. Appellant's contention was that she was getting income of Rs.4000/- per month by selling vegetables and Rs.1000/- by selling milk etc. The learned trial Judge, having thought it proper to assess the income of the appellant at Rs.3000/- per month, has assessed Rs.36,000/- per annum, and by applying multiplier '9' as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER1, has computed the amount of Rs.3,24,000/- (Rs.36,000/- X 9). Since the disability of the appellant, in the opinion of P.W.1, is 25%, the actual amount which she is entitled to get towards compensation under the head of loss of earning comes to Rs.3,24,000/- X 25/100 = Rs.81,000/- but not Rs.54,000/- which is awarded by the Court below. In my view, the deduction of 1/3rd of the income of the deceased towards 1 2009 ACJ 1298 4 JUD,J M.A.C.M.A.No.1039 of 2013.
personal expenditure, in cases of injured, is not proper and correct. It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained grievous injury to occipital region of the head due to which she lost memory power and is suffering from severe head ache and giddiness etc. As the amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded to the appellant, under the head of grievous injury, appears to be low, the same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. In addition to the aforementioned amount, I feel that awarding an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of enjoyment in life is just and reasonable. In total, the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,36,154/- i.e., (Rs.36,000/-X 9 X 25/100 = Rs.81,000/- + Rs.20,000 + Rs.4000/- + Rs.5000/- + Rs.5000/-+ Rs.5000/- +Rs.10,000/- + Rs.6154/).
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with the modification as indicated supra.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
________________ J. UMA DEVI, J 11th December, 2019 Tsy