MACMA/3226/2005 of R.V. Ramana Vs G. Ram Reddy on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988is directed against the order dated 02-08-2005 in O.P No. 769 of 2002on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast TrackCourt), Ranga Reddy District.

The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claimingcompensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in anaccident. He pleaded that on 02-08-2002, at about 03.20 P.M., whenhe and one Nageswar Rao were proceeding on a motor cycle bearingNo. AP 28 H 679 to go to their residence from Suraram side and whenthey reached D.P. Colony turning, one DCM Van bearing No. AHT2294 came with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner anddashed against the appellant’s motor cycle from its behind, due towhich, he fell down and sustained fracture to his left hand, injuries tohead, face, both legs, and other parts of the body. Immediately, hewas shifted to Ram Hospital, Hyderabad. Thereafter, he tooktreatment in Aswini Nursing Home, Kakinada as inpatient, undergonean operation and rods were also inserted. Prior to the accident, theappellant used to work in Topaz Blades Company and earn Rs.4,500/-per month.

The respondents filed their counters denying all the materialallegations.

On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framednecessary issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash andnegligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AHT 2294; whether the accident vehicle was insured with respondent No.2; whether there isany violation of policy conditions and whether the appellant is entitledfor any compensation, if so, from whom and to what extent.

On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked and Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance policy wasmarked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company.

On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidenceavailable on record, the learned Judge awarded an amount ofRs.50,000/- as compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount ofcompensation granted by the learned Judge, the present appeal isfiled by the appellant.

The learned counsel for the appellant contended that thelearned Judge has awarded only Rs.10,000/- under the head loss ofearnings holding that the appellant could not have attended to work atleast for a period of three months during his treatment. He furthercontended that though the doctor who was examined as PW 2deposed that the appellant sustained 25% disability which is partialand permanent and issued Ex.A-10 certificate to that effect, the learnedJudge has not taken the same into consideration holding that Ex.A10is not issued by the doctor who treated the appellant.

The learned counsel for the respondents contended that thecompensation awarded by the learned Judge is quite reasonable andneeds no interference.

There is no dispute with regard to rash and negligent driving bythe driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the earnings of thedeceased, the learned Judge has granted only Rs.10,000/- under thehead loss of earnings, which in my considered view is very meagre. The Supreme Court in Hardeo Kaur vs. Rajasthan State TransportCorporation[[1]]held that the determination of compensation in respectof injury cases must be liberal. The relevant portion of the same readsas under:

“the determination of compensation in respect of

injury cases must be liberal and the amount ofcompensation so awarded should not be niggardly andat the same not a wind fall as a profit making venturethrough the Learned Judges or Courts. When thecompensation is awarded by the Courts and LearnedJudges even the tort feasor should feel that he is atonedfor the sin committed by him in committing the accidentrobbing the precious life of a human being and injuringthe innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelinesfrom such precedents is only to emphasise that if thereare two precedents dealing with the same question ofassessing the compensation, the one which has adopteda liberal approach should be preferred than the onewhich has adopted the conservative approach.”

Considering the circumstances of the case, an amount ofRs.3,500/- per month notionally can be taken as income of theclaimant.

It is claimed by the appellant that he sustained fracture of bothbones of left fore arm, injuries to knees, head and other parts of thebody. In support of his claim, he examined PW 2-doctor who issueddisability certificate, which was marked as Ex.A-10. The learnedJudge while discarding the evidence of PW 2 observed that PW 2 isnot the doctor who treated the appellant. The fact remains that PW 2 isthe doctor and nothing is elicited in his cross examination to disbelievehis evidence. No contra evidence was produced by the respondentsalso. But, in the circumstances of the case, considering the certificateissued by the doctor after 1 ½ years of the accident, the disabilitysustained by the appellant can be safely taken at 20%.

Thus, quantified on a sum of Rs.3,500/- per month and thedisability at 20%, for the purpose of determining the compensationtowards disability and thereby, the loss of earnings comes toRs.8,400/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 28 years atthe time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said agegroup, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma v. DelhiTransport Corporation[[2]]is 17. Then, the compensation towards 20% disability comes to Rs.8,400 x 17=Rs.1,42,800/-. In addition, asum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/-towards medicines is awarded. Therefore, in all, the compensationcomes to Rs.1,62,800/-. But since the appellant has claimed onlyRs.1,50,000/- as compensation, his claim is restricted to Rs.1,50,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by learned Judge is enhancedfrom Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,50,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carryinterest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation.

With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal isallowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

30.12.2010

lvl

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J

[1]AIR 1992 SC 1261[2]2009 (6) SCALE 129

MACMA No. 3226 OF 2005

Dated: 30.12.2010