Telangana High Court
Allakonda Lingamma, Nizamabad Dist vs Sri Saber Bin Abood, Nizamabad Another on 20 July, 2022
Author: G Sri Devi
Bench: G Sri Devi
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE G. SRIDEVI
MACMA No.1944 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is preferred by the petitioner-claimant assailing the award and decree dated 18.11.2004 passed in O.P.No.1484 of 2004 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.3,68,715/- was awarded to the petitioner as against the claim of Rs.10.00 lakhs.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are briefly as follows:
4. On 20.10.2002 the petitioner was travelling in auto bearing No.AP-25/U-2769 from Bodhan to Nizamabad and at about 1.00 p.m, when the auto reached near Janakampet canal bridge, the driver of the auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and having lost control over it, went off the road and turned turtle due to which the petitioner sustained multiple injuries and crush injuries to his left hand, ribs, left shoulder, and grievous injuries all over the body. The petitioner was 2 GSD, J Macma_1944_2008 shifted to Tirumala hospital, Nizamabad where he took treatment as inpatient, underwent two major operations and his left hand was amputated above the elbow and that the petitioner incurred Rs.3.00 lakhs towards treatment. In this regard a case was registered on the file of P.S.Yedpally under Section 337 IPC. The case of the petitioner is that by the date of accident he was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.12,000/- p.m. by working as mason and on account of amputation of his left shoulder, he got disability and lost his earnings. Hence, the petitioner filed the petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents.
5. The first respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte. The second respondent - insurer filed counter contending that the driver of the auto was not holding valid driving licence and that the driver of the auto might have allowed more passengers in the auto than its seating capacity due to which the accident occurred. It was further contended that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads is highly excessive and exorbitant. Therefore, this respondent is not liable to pay 3 GSD, J Macma_1944_2008 compensation to the petitioner. Hence the petition may be dismissed.
6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner himself got examined as P.W.1 and he also got examined the doctor who treated him for the injuries as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral evidence was adduced but the copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1.
7. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral, documentary evidence and other material available on record, arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle and awarded a compensation of Rs.3,68,715/- to the petitioner and against the respondents with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Not being satisfied with the said amount of compensation, the petitioner preferred this appeal.
8. Heard both sides and perused the record.
9. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place has become final as the same is not challenged by the respondents.
4
GSD, J Macma_1944_2008
10. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as seen from the record, to prove the expenses incurred by the petitioner towards his treatment that immediately after the accident the petitioner was shifted to Tirumala hospital Nizamabad on 20.10.2002. To prove that fact, the petitioner examined the doctor of the said hospital as P.W.2.
11. In order to prove the injuries the petitioner exhibited Ex.A.3 injury certificate, Ex.A.4 medical bills, Exs.A.6 and A.7 disability certificates. He also examined the doctor who treated him as P.W.2 who assessed the disability of the petitioner at 60% and issued Ex.A.6 disability certificate. Ex.A.7 disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board as per which the petitioner sustained 50% disability. Ex.A.3 wound certificate shows that the petitioner sustained traumatic amputation of left upper limb and multiple abrasions on chest and left shoulder. Ex.A.4 is the prescription issued by Dr.T.Narsing Rao of Tirumala hospital, Nizamabad which shows that the petitioner was in the hospital from 20.12.2002 to 04.11.2002. Ex.A.4 also contains the medical bills.
5
GSD, J Macma_1944_2008
12. Ex.A.4 shows that the petitioner incurred Rs.24,715/- towards medical expenses.
13. The contention of the petitioner is that he was aged 40 years by the date of accident and was earning Rs.12,000/- per month by doing mason work. The Tribunal assessed the income of the petitioner as Rs.3,000/- per month and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, his income would be Rs.2,000/- per month. The contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company is that no document has been filed to prove the income of the petitioner. In Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar1 the Apex Court held that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably estimated minimum at Rs.3,000/- per month for any non- earning member. In this case, the petitioner was doing mason work, therefore, considering the age and avocation of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to take the income of the appellant at Rs.4,000/- per month. In Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another2 the Apex Court held that "In the case of an injured claimant with a disability, what is calculated is the 1 (2001) 8 SCC 197 2 MACD 2011 (SC) 33 6 GSD, J Macma_1944_2008 future loss of earning of the claimant, payable to claimant, (as contrasted from loss of dependency calculated in a fatal accident, where the dependent family members of the deceased are the claimants). Therefore there is no need to deduct one-third or any other percentage from out of the income, towards the personal and living expenses." In view of the above, there is no need to deduct any amount towards personal expenses. Since the petitioner was aged about 40 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is '16'. Therefore, if appropriate multiplier 16 is applied, the compensation under the head 'loss of earnings' would come to Rs.4,000 X 12 X 16 X 50/100 = Rs.3,84,000/-. Apart from the above, the petitioner is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, transportation and attendant charges.
14. Considering the nature of injuries and other circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.52,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability, which in my opinion is appropriate and hence the same does not need further enhancement.
7
GSD, J Macma_1944_2008
15. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to compensation as follows:
Towards pain and suffering: Rs.52,000-00 Towards disability and amenities of life: Rs.1,00,000-00 Towards medical expenses: Rs.24,715-00 Towards loss of earnings: Rs.3,84,000-00 Towards extra nourishment, transportation and attendant charges: Rs.10,000-00
-------------------
Rs.5,70,715-00
-------------------
16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.3,68,715/- to Rs.5,70,715/- The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization, payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. There shall be no order as to costs.
17. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________ JUSTICE G. SRI DEVI Date: 20.07.2022 Kvsn /Ysk