MACMA/2898/2015 of Dhondi Yogesh Vs Swarupa Rani on 31 December 2015

COMMON ORDER :

The injured-claimant, in O.P. No.954 of 2003 on the fileof the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal –cum- VIIIAdditional District Judge, Nizamabad, maintained underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for Rs.7,00,000/- forthe injuries sustained in the motor accident dated31.03.2003 for the alleged rash and negligent driving of thetanker bearing No.AP 31 U 4556 of the 1[st] respondentinsured with the 2[nd] respondent under Ex.B-1 policy fromthe Tribunal after evidence on record of the claimant andtried as P.Ws 1 and 2 with reference to Exs.A-1 and A-19and Exs.C-1 and C-2 awarded compensation ofRs.2,11,460/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. vide award dated22.09.2008 in O.P. No.954 of 2003 preferred the appeal withcontentions in the grounds of appeal that the Tribunal oughtto have been taken the monthly income as Rs.10,000/- permonth as evidence on record he worked as Manager andmaintaining accounts in a rice mill and what the Tribunaltaken of Rs.3,500/- per month is utterly low and with nobasis and the disability deposed by P.W-2 when clearlyspeaks 30 to 40%, the Tribunal went wrong in taking 14%and thereby that also requires to be enhanced and soughtfor allowing the claim as prayed for with other contentions of the medical expenses not properly considered was also forother several summons which requires enhancement.

2) The appeal is filed with delay of 164 days. The 2[nd]respondent is the insurance company representing SriK.Subba Rao Advocate on the other hand contended thatbut for no cross objections what the award of the Tribunal,compensation itself is excessive and exorbitant for nodisability more than 14% as observed by the Tribunal in theaward at page No.11, para No.10 sub para No.vii andthereby sought for dismissal also by saying there are nogrounds to condone the abnormal delay even.

3) Heard both sides and perused the material onrecord. Reasons assigned for the delay in filing the appealis that due to poverty the appeal could not be filed in time. Hence delay is condoned subject to condition that theclaimant is entitled the interest on the enhanced amount, ifany, from today only. At request of both sides the appeal istaken up for hearing.

4) From the evidence on record of P.Ws 1 and 2 withreference to Exs.A-1 to A-19 and Exs.C-1 and C-2 so far asthe medical bills and receipts concerned, the Tribunalscanned the evidence particularly from Exs.A-5 to A-11 andEx.A-15, C-1 and P.W-2 evidence and came to theconclusion in awarding Rs.75,000/- towards medicalexpenses which no way requires interference either toenhance or to reduce. Coming to the permanent disability,

as rightly concluded by the Tribunal, as per Schedule I, paraII, item 40 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 forremoval of the great toe amputation of great toe, thedisability is 14%. So far as the other injuries concerned, inthe evidence of P.W-2 particularly as discussed by theTribunal for the award page No.6, para No.10 clause (i) whatP.W-2 deposed is it requires three months get normalcythereby what P.W-1 stated of 30% to 40% disability fornothing even from Ex.C-2 discharge summary cannot begiven appreciation so far as that disability from the fracturedinjuries concerned, but for the injury No.3 results amputationof right great toe. Thus, it is just to take the permanentdisability to a maximum of 15%. In all respects, if that istaken consideration, the age of the injured as on the date ofaccident 22 years and the multiplier that is applicable is 18and not 17 taken by the Tribunal. Thus, as taken theearnings of the injured at Rs.3,500/- p.a. which no wayrequires enhancement, even from the expression of theapex Court in the absence of proof of earnings as aguidance of Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[[1]]ofRs.3,000/- minimum to take, then it comes to (Rs.3,500 x 15x 12 x 18) 1,13,400/-, apart from it a sum of Rs.75,000/-towards medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal, itcomes to Rs.1,88,400/- and even from the evidence, to healthe injuries even taken the loss of earnings of Rs.10,500/-being added to it, apart from transport charges thoughclaimed of Rs.15,500/- under Ex.A-13 what the Tribunal allowed Rs.5,000/- for several times traveled from Armoor toHyderabad and the extra nourishment even taken asRs.10,000/-, attendant charges Rs.5,000/-, it all comes toRs.2,14,500/- rounded to Rs.2,15,000/-.

5) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancingcompensation from Rs.2,11,460/- to Rs.2,15,000/- withinterest on the enhanced amount from today by upholdingthe other aspects. There is no order as to costs.

6) Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in thisappeal, shall stand closed.

31.12.2015ksh

___________________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

[1](2001) 8 SCC 197=AIR 2001 (SC) 3218