CMA/4081/2003 of Annadevula Vijaya Mohan Reddy Vs Shaik Basheer Ahammad on 30 December 2010

J U D G M E N T:

This is an appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’) by the appellant-claimant, seekingenhancement of the compensation, aggrieved by what has beenawarded by the II Additional District Judge, Nellore in O.P.No. 358 of2001, on 08.04.2003.

The facts, in brief, are as follows.

The claimant filed the above said O.P. under Section 166 of theAct, claiming compensation of Rs.3,09,846/- for the injuries sustainedby him in a road accident that took place on 12.06.1999, at about 11.00a.m. on Nellore-Kodur road, near Chinathopu Agraharam, when hewas proceeding on a motor cycle. At that time, a lorry bearing No.AHH 3087 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and at a highspeed and hit the motor cycle of the appellant, as a result, himselfalong with the pillion rider fell down and sustained grievous injuries. According to the appellant, he was a Post Graduate in Pharmacologyand an agriculturist and was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Heunderwent treatment for a long period, for the injuries.

Before the Tribunal, Respondent No. 1 remained ex parte.

In the counter-affidavit, the 2[nd] respondent insurer of the lorrydenied the pleas taken by the appellant and disputed the validity of theinsurance of the lorry.

Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed thefollowing issues for trial.

(1) Whether the pleaded accident occurred and if so was it dueto the fault of the driver of R-1’s lorry?to the fault of the driver of R-1’s lorry?

(2) Whether R-1’s lorry stood insured with R-2 on the date ofthe accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk ofthe claimant?the accident and if so whether the policy covers the risk ofthe claimant?

(3) Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from which of the respondent?(4)To what relief?

During trial, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined one A. Muneiah as P.W.2, Dr.G. Padmaja Rani, whorendered treatment at the Government Hospital, Nellore at the firstinstance as P.W.3 and D.S. Ravi Subrahmanyan, the doctor atChennai as P.W.4 and got marked Exs.1 to A15. On behalf of theInsurance company, Exs. B1 and B2 were marked.

The Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 coupledwith the documentary evidence Exs.A1 to A3, held that the accidentoccurred due to the fault of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry. Itanswered the 2[nd] issue in favour of the claimant, holding that theoffending vehicle was insured with the 2[nd] respondent. Coming to thecompensation aspect, the Tribunal, considering the entire materialavailable on record, held that the injured spent Rs. 72,815/- towardsmedical expenses and transportation charges. With regard to thedisability, the doctors certified that the injured suffered 35% disability,but in view of the fact that he was doing agricultural work at that time, itcan be presumed that he does the agriculture by engaging therequired coolies and therefore, he would not sustain any loss ofearnings and it thus denied the compensation on that count.

Now, the appellant preferred this appeal questioning the awardof the Tribunal on the ground that the amount of compensationawarded is not at all commensurate with the loss of earning capacitysuffered by him and the expenditure incurred for the treatment taken forthe injuries.

Heard Sri Bathula Venkateswara Rao, learned StandingCounsel for the 2[nd] respondent.

Admittedly, the appellant is a post graduate in pharmacologyand is an agriculturist, therefore, the Tribunal ought to have fixed someamount towards his income. In view of the facts and circumstances,

Rs.5,000/- per month is to be taken as his monthly income. If disabilityis taken as 35% as certified by the doctors, then it comes to Rs.5,000/-x 35% = 1,750/- per month. Annually, it comes to Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees1,750/- x 12). As per the decision in the judgment reported in SarlaVerma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[[1]], the appropriate multiplieris ‘13’, since the injured is aged about 47 years at the time of filing thisappeal. Therefore, the compensation amount towards loss of earningcapacity is Rs.2,73,000/- (Rs.21,000/- x ‘13’). An additional amount ofRs.7,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering. In total, the amountto be paid to the appellant is Rs.2,80,000/-. The enhanced amountshall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till thedate of realization.

With the above modification, the Appeal is allowed in part. Noorder as to costs.

__________________________

GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

30[th] December 2010

ksld

[1]AIR 2009 Supreme Court 3104