Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gumpelli Munishwar And Ors. on 3 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: I(2007)ACC284, 2006(6)ALD252
Author: L. Narasimha Reddy
Bench: L. Narasimha Reddy
JUDGMENT L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. The first respondent is employed as a Hamali in the Food Corporation of India Godowns at Narsampet Village, Warangal District. On 1-1-2004, himself and another person, by name G. Komuraiah, went to Kajipet, on a motor cycle, bearing No. AP 36 K 834, to collect a cheque from the Regional Office of the Food Corporation of India and were returning to Narsampet. On their way, they met with an accident involving a DCM Van bearing No. AP 28T 4495, owned by the 3rd respondent and insured with the appellant. The first respondent sustained several injuries and was treated at various places. He filed O.P. No. 240 of 2005 before the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III Fast Track Court), Warangal at Mahabubabad, claiming a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation. Through its order, dated 21-1-2006, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,24,900/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Hence, this appeal, by the Insurance Company.
2. Sri M. Jeevan Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that when the claim itself was for Rs. 2,00,000/-, there was no justification for the Tribunal in awarding Rs. 3,24,900/- as compensation. He contends that mere payment of Court fee, at a later point of time, cannot be a substitute for the pleadings, justifying the awarding of a sum, over and above what was claimed. The learned Counsel further points out that the award of a sum of Rs. 2,30,400/- towards loss of earnings, on account of disability, cannot be sustained in law.
3. Sri M. Madhava Reddy, the learned Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court, in awarding the sum, over and above what was claimed in the O.P. He further contends that the medical evidence clearly discloses that the first respondent sustained disability to the extent of 40% and the Tribunal awarded the compensation, duly following the relevant principles.
4. The occurrence of accident, resulting in injuries to the first respondent is not in dispute and there is no serious effort on the part of the appellant herein to assail the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the accident occurred, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, insured with it. The dispute is only as to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
5. Broadly stated, the Tribunal awarded compensation under two heads viz., the compensation for the injuries (including the expenditure for treatment); and the compensation towards permanent disability incurred by the first respondent. So far as the first part is concerned, the Tribunal discussed the matter with reference to the oral evidence of P.Ws.l to 4 and the documentary evidence, in the form of Exs.A.1 to A.75, and awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for the injury of fracture and Rs. 10,000/- for the other two grievous injuries. Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for two simple injuries. The bills filed by the petitioner herein accounted for about Rs. 40,000/-, be it towards expenses for treatment or purchase of medicines. Rs. 18,000/- was awarded towards loss of earning, for the period, during which he has undergone treatment. In all, a sum of Rs. 94,500/- was awarded under this head. Having regard to the reliable deposition of two Doctors viz., P.Ws.3 and 4, who treated the first respondent, and the genuinity of the bills, this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the said finding.
6. The Tribunal took the permanent disability, suffered by the first respondent, at 40%. The salary of the first respondent was taken at Rs. 3,000/- per month and after making statutory deductions, a sum of Rs. 2,30,400/- was awarded. It may be true that the first respondent suffered disability and it may take quite sometime for him to resume his duties. The disability certified by the medical practitioners at 40%, may be with reference to the functioning of the first respondent as Hamali. That does not mean that he became incapable of undertaking any other activity. If the purport of the definition of permanent 'partial' or 'total' disability as defined under the Workmen's Compensation Act, is taken into account, it becomes clear that the disability must not be referable to any particular activity, but must be even as regards other similar activities.
7. Assuming that the first respondent may not be in a position to lift the same amount of load, as he used to do, before sustaining injuries, it cannot be said that he has become unfit, either absolutely, or to the extent of 40%, as regard other activities also. Taking these aspects into account, this Court is of the view that the first respondent can be awarded compensation under this head to an extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. In view of the continuous pain and suffering being undergone by the first respondent, the amount awarded under the first head can be stepped upto Rs. 1,00,000/-. In all, the first respondent shall be entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.
8. Hence, the M.A.C.M.A is allowed, by reducing the compensation from Rs. 3,24,900/- to Rs. 2,50,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the application. There shall be no order as to costs.