Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
The Oriental Insurance Company ... vs Gaddamaduga Saibaba And Ors. on 24 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995(2)ALT485
JUDGMENT P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.
1. The first respondent herein, the petitioner in M.A.T.O.P. No. 198 of 1990 filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 30-12-1989 at Nagarjuna Canal Office Petrol Pump, Khammam, due to tine rash and negligent driving of the vehicle i.e., Tractor bearing AAN 9995 by the 2nd respondent.
2. The first respondent is working in Mandal Revenue Office, Khammam as Head Assistant. His wife, two daughters and a son are dependent upon him besides his mother and a minor brother. The first respondent was getting a salary of Rs. 2,439 / - per month. He was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. The first respondent was proceeding to the Office of the District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Khammam on his vehicle i.e., Luna Moped bearing No.AAH 423 about 2.00 p.m. on 13-12-1989 and when he reached the Petrol Bunk, the Tractor being driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his Luna Moped and the front tyres of the Tractor ran over the first respondent and due to the said accident he received multiple injuries all over his body. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Khammam and the Doctor who examined him opined that spinal chord of the first respondent was fractured, and, therefore advised that the first respondent should be removed to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. The first respondent was under the treatment of Dr. V.S. Reddy, and, accordingly, the first respondent underwent two operations. The first respondent lost complete sensation from abdominal portion to the toe in view of the fracture of the spinal chord. He is not in a position to move or even lift his hands. He, therefore, employed two attendants to serve him throughout the day. The Doctors opined that the first respondent had to remain in bed for the rest of his life. He spent about Rs. 15,000/- towards transport charges from Khammam to Hyderabad and Hyderabad to Khammam by engaging Taxies several times. He claimed in all Rs. 5,26,824/-at the rate of Rs. 2,439/- per month towards general and special damages for a period of 18 years, taking the period of retirement at 58 years.
3. Respondent No. 2 and 3 are the driver and the owner of the Tractor. Respondent No. 4 is the New India Assurance Company Limited, Khammam. The third respondent in the O.P., is the appellant herein. It denied the material allegations in the petition. The fourth respondent denied having issued any policy of insurance in favour of the vehicle bearing No. AAH 423.
4. The first respondent examined three witnesses besides examining himself as P.W.I and marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. The appellant did not examine any witnesses, except marking Ex.B-1. The Tribunal on a consideration of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver, the second respondent.
5. The first respondent is getting a salary of Rs. 2,439 /- per month by the date of accident. If calculated at the said rate for a period of 18 years, he would have earned Rs. 5,26,824/-. He sought a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 12 per cent interest and costs. Ex.B-1 Insurance Policy covers both the Tractor and Trailor. The third respondent is held to be vicariously liable, while there is no responsibility for the fourth respondent. It also found that the first respondent was not in a position to earn anything. The Tribunal found that engaging two attendants, the first respondent has to spend Rs. 900/- every month which would come to Rs. 10,800/- per year and for 20 years, it would come to Rs. 2,00,000/-. The Tribunal took into consideration that the first respondent would have earned at the average of Rs. 3,000/- per month which comes to Rs. 36,000/- per year and for a period of 13 years, it comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. The first respondent is entitled to 12 per cent interest and proportionate costs, and, accordingly, awarded the said sum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
6. The Tribunal further directed out of the said sum, a sum of Rs. 2,68,000/- and costs may be kept in fixed deposit and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- can be paid to the first respondent. The interest awarded on the compensation amount shall be paid to the wife of the first respondent for proper upkeep and to look after the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, the third respondent-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Khammam Branch, preferred this appeal.
7. In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the first respondent is attending his office, and, therefore, compensation awarded on the basis that he is not able to move about, nor attend his office cannot be sustained. In view of this contention, we directed both parties to file affidavits to find out whether the first respondent is continuing in his job or not. Accordingly, the Assistant Manager of the appellant-Company filed affidavit, stating that as the first respondent is continuing in his job, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis that the first respondent would not be in a position to move about and attend his office is not correct, and, therefore, the compensation as awarded has to be revised.
8. The first respondent has also filed his affidavit dated 10-2-1995 stating that as his both legs are paralised he is moving in a wheeled chair with the help of the attendants. The body below the chest lost senses due to the accident. However, he was allowed to join duty solely on compassionate grounds in order to save his family from starvation and at present he is drawing a salary of Rs. 5,217/- and there is every risk of being removed from the service at any time because he is continuing on compassionate grounds.
9. We have heard both the Counsel. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the second respondent-driver and that the appellant and respondents 2 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation cannot be disturbed. However, in view of the fact that the first respondent is attending to his office we are of the view that the compensation as awarded by the tribunal requires modification.
10. Taking into consideration the present salary of the first respondent and also the fact that he is working since 16-6-1993 and continuing as such, we are of the view that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal shall be reduced by Rs. 2,00,000/-. This reduction is made irrespective of the fact whether the first respondent is allowed to continue in office till he attains superannuation or discharged meanwhile.
11. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.