Telangana High Court
A. Satish vs B. Ravikanth And Another on 27 January, 2020
Author: K.Lakshman
Bench: K.Lakshman
0HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
M.A.C.M.A. No.2255 OF 2006
JUDGMENT:
Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 20.03.2006 in OP No.2393 of 2003, passed by XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, FTC, Hyderabad, the appellant - claimant preferred the present appeal.
2. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.1,27,582/- towards compensation with proportionate costs with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation as against a claim of Rs.3,00,000/- by the appellant - claimant.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent.
4. The appellant - claimant filed OP No.2393 of 2003 before the Tribunal contending that he was aged 29 years and working as an Engineer in IRSE and getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month as on the date of accident. On 19.06.2003, he was proceeding on Suzuki Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 37 L 6985 from New MLA Quarters towards Care hospital. On reaching near Saraswathi Vidya Mandir, Venkataramana Colony, one Hero Honda motor cycle bearing No.AP 13F 1699 driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver with high speed and without observing traffic rules came in wrong direction and hit the appellant's motor cycle. Due to the said accident, the appellant fell down on the road and sustained bleeding fracture injuries all over the body. Immediately, KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 2 he was shifted to Care hospital where he was admitted as in-patient. According to him, the accident was occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda motor cycle. On the complaint given by the appellant, Panjagutta police registered a case in Crime No.979 of 2003 under Section 338 IPC, against the rider of Hero Honda motor cycle. It was further contended by the appellant that in the said accident, he sustained fracture of Shaft Femur left and other multiple injuries all over the body.
5. According to the appellant he was treated in Care Hospital as inpatient for 12 days and lost his earnings. Doctors advised him to take bed rest for more than six months and thereafter also he got pain on knee due to the said accident. He was admitted in Kamineni Hospital on 08.04.2004 and underwent arthroscopy operation and discharged on 09.04.2004. With the above said contentions, the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation under various heads.
6. The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company filed counter disputing the liability and also the quantum of compensation and contended that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant himself and it was not due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda Motor Cycle. It has also disputed the age, wage of the appellant and the manner of the accident, and prayed for dismissal of the OP.
7. The Tribunal, on consideration of the entire evidence, has awarded an amount of Rs.1,27,582/- towards compensation under various KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 3 heads. Dissatisfied with the same, the appellant - claimant preferred the present appeal.
8. Impugning the said Award, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was aged 29 years, working as an Engineer in IRSE and getting salary of an amount of Rs.14,000/- per month. He would further contend that the Tribunal did not consider Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-14 medical bills submitted by the appellant. According to him, the finding of the Tribunal that the circumstance indicates that the appellant might have got those bills either from his department or from any medical insurance or any medical reimbursement claim and that no explanation was given for non-producing of receipts, is erroneous. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the said finding of the Tribunal is only basing on the surmises and not basing on the depositions of the witnesses and also exhibits. According to him, the Tribunal did not consider the pain and suffering properly and it has granted only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, which is meager and in view of the injuries sustained by him, the appellant suffered knee pain after one year of the accident also. With the said contentions, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for enhancement of the compensation.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal has rightly considered the entire evidence on record and awarded an amount of Rs.1,27,582/-. According to him, the appellant did not produce the original receipts as mentioned under Ex.A-5 and hence, the Tribunal has KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 4 rejected the said claim by giving specific finding and therefore, there is no error in the impugned award.
10. On perusal of the entire record, it is not in dispute that the appellant was an engineer in Railways, aged 29 years and was getting salary of Rs.14,000/- per month. The Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle. There is no appeal filed by the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company challenging the said finding. Thus, the said finding attained finality. Now the only question falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to quantum of compensation.
11. Admittedly, the appellant-claimant filed Ex.A-15 pay slip and Ex.A-16 leave cum loss of pay certificate issued by the South Central Railway. He has also filed the entire medical report in proof of the injury sustained by him. He has also examined Dr. C.Kama Raju, who treated him, as PW.2 and Smt. B. Vani Kumari, Senior Personnel Officer in South Central Railway, Secunderabad as PW.3. Ex.A-5 reflects an amount of Rs.63,000/- deposited by the appellant towards advance payment with the care Hospital. The actual amount under Ex.A-5 Hospitalization Bill is Rs.59,074/-. By referring the above said two amounts in Ex.A5, it is also reflected Rs.3,026/- which was refunded to the appellant. In the said Ex.A-5, five receipts were mentioned in the bottom. The Tribunal, by referring the said receipts, gave a finding that the said receipts were not produced before the Tribunal for the reasons best known to the appellant and the said circumstance indicates that the KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 5 petitioner might have got those bills reimbursed either from the department or from any medical insurance or any medical reimbursement claim.
12. As stated above, admittedly, the appellant deposed himself as PW.1 and examined one B. Vani Kumari, Senior Personnel Officer in South Central Railways, Secunderabad, as PW.3. The 2nd respondent - Insurance Company did not elicit anything contra from the cross- examination of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the said aspect. There is no contra evidence which is contrary to Ex.A-5. Ex.A-5 clearly discloses about advance payment of an amount of Rs.63,000/- made by the appellant and the actual amount incurred as Rs.59,074/-, and refund of Rs.3,926/- to the appellant. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the claimant incurred an amount of Rs.59,074/- and therefore, he is entitled for the said amount. The finding of the Tribunal on the said aspect is contrary to the record and it is only on surmises.
13. Ex.A-14 is the bill dated 26.06.2003 issued by Vishal Surgical Equipment Company. As per Ex.A-14 the date of order is mentioned as 16.06.2003 and the date of bill is mentioned as 26.06.2003. The amount mentioned in Ex.A-14 bills is Rs.10,260/-. The Tribunal gave a finding that though the operation was conducted on 25.06.2003, the said bill was dated 26.06.2003. The said bill cannot be prior to the date of operation. It should be either on the date of operation or much prior to the operation. As stated supra, it is specifically mentioned that the date of order as '16.06.2003'. Therefore, in the absence of any contra evidence, the KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 6 finding of the Tribunal on the said aspect is not sustainable. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for the said amount of Rs.10,260/- as mentioned under Ex.A-14 bill.
14. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that an amount of Rs.2,000/- awarded towards transportation is very less. Therefore, according to this Court, the appellant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards transportation. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. As per the record, the appellant - claimant received fracture to left femur and other multiple injuries all over the body. He underwent treatment for 12 days. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Kamineni Hospital on 08.04.2004 due to pain in the left knee, was operated on 08.04.2004 and the operation was arthroscopy operation. Thereafter, the appellant - claimant was discharged on 09.04.2004. But, the Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. According to this Court, the said amount is very meager and not reasonable, and hence, the appellant - claimant is entitled for Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads such as attendant charges, extra nourishment, loss of earnings are reasonable.
15. Now the other question is with regard to disability. As discussed above, as per Ex.A-8, the disability is 15%. By referring the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar1, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this Court is having power 1 (2011) 1 Supreme Court Cases 343 KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 7 to award just compensation and also award compensation by assessing disability, more particularly, Ex.A-8 disability certificate.
16. Admittedly, Ex.A-8 discloses the disability as 15%. The said Ex.A-8 is not disputed. The monthly salary of the appellant as per the evidence of PW.3 is Rs.13,387/-. There is a deduction of Rs.1,010/- towards tax and other components as per Ex.A-15 pay slip. Hence, his net salary is Rs.12,287/- As per the principle held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation2, the multiplier should be '17' since the appellant - claimant was aged 29 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.3,79,042/- under the head of Disability at 15% (Rs.12,287-00 x 12 x 17 x 15% disability). According to this Court, the said amount is reasonable.
17. Therefore, the appellant - claimant is entitled for the following amounts towards compensation:
1. Disability at 15% .. Rs.3,79,042-00
2. Transportation .. Rs. 5,000-00
3. Damages to clothes .. Rs. 1,000-00
4. Pain & Suffering .. Rs. 20,000-00
5. Extra nourishment .. Rs. 12,000-00
6. Attendant charges .. Rs. 12,000-00
7. Loss of monthly earnings .. Rs. 81,722-00
8. Medical expenses .. Rs. 69,334-00
-------------------
Total compensation .. Rs.5,80,098-00
-------------------
Thus, in all, the appellant - claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,80,098/- (Rupees five lakhs eighty thousand and ninety eight only) as compensation with interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced 2 . (2009) 6 SCC 121 KL,J MACMA No.2255 of 2006 8 amount. This Court is having power to grant just and reasonable compensation to which the appellant - claimant is entitled as held by the Apex Court in Ramla v. National Insurance Company Limited3.
18. In the result, the MACMA is allowed and the Award and decree dated 20.03.2006 in O.P. No.2393 of 2003 passed by the XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, FTC, Hyderabad, are modified enhancing the compensation to Rs.5,80,098/- (Rupees five lakhs eighty thousand and ninety eight only) from Rs.1,27,582/- (Rupees one lakh twenty seven thousand five hundred and eighty two only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount, from the date of petition till realization. The appellant - claimant is directed to pay deficit court fee within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The 2nd respondent - Insurance Corporation is directed to deposit the above said amount with interest and costs after deducting the amount which was already deposited, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the appellant - claimant is entitled to withdraw the same.
There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J January 27, 2020 KTL 3 . (2019) 2 SCC 192