CMA/3989/2003 of Mr.P.Parshaiah Vs Mr.Osman Ali Khan on 30 December 2010

JUDGMENT:

Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awardedin O.P. No.204 of 1997 vide judgment dated 13-03-2002 by thelearned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – IAdditional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, claimant preferredthis Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement ofcompensation.

2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.ABT – 1644 involved inthe accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively inthe O.P. before the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to asarrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal.

4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 13-02-1996 at 7-30 AM while he was returning to his residence afterattending the duties at Koramandal Factory, at Chinnakodur Bypassroad, lorry bearing No.ABT – 1644 being driven by its driver in a rashand negligent manner and high speed, dashed against him, as aresult, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted toGovernment Hospital, Siddipet and from there to Gandhi Hospital,Secunderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of onemonth. Due to the accident, his left leg was amputated up to kneelevel and thus he became permanently disabled. He took treatementin private hospitals at Hyderabad and Siddipet. He incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, he claimed acompensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.

5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the lorry involved in theaccident, remained ex parte.

6. Respondent No.2, the insurer of the above lorry, alone filedits counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability forpayment of compensation.

7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed fortrial by the Tribunal:

“1. Whether the claimant proved the accident dt.13-2-96

committed by driver of R.1?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled for the compensation as claimed for?

3. To what relief?”

8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, except marking the copy of the insurance policy of the offendingvehicle as Ex.B-1 with the consent of the claimant, no oral evidencewas adduced.

9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborateconsideration of the same and taking into consideration amputation ofleft leg of the claimant up to knee level, awarded a compensation ofRs.47,170/- against both the respondents for payment of compensationjointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfiedwith the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal

10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal orcross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving theaccident and their liability for payment of compensation.

11. Hence the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant isinadequate ?

12. It is a case of amputation of left leg of an 18 years old boy,who was said to be a labourer. The leg was amputated up to kneelevel. He took treatement as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital for a periodof one month and thereafter it is the case of the claimant that he tooktreatment in private hospitals at Hyderabad and Secunderabad andspent Rs.50,000/- for treatment. Therefore, the compensation ofRs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate. Thecompensation awarded by the Tribunal is as under:

1. Shock, pain and suffering and

loss of amenities in life - Rs.15,000-00

2. Injury and disability - Rs.20,000-00

3. Medical Expenses - Rs. 1,500-00

4. Loss of earning capacity - Rs.10,670-00

In my considered opinion, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal underall the heads are grossly inadequate.

13. The claim of the claimant is that he was earning Rs.1,500/-per month by working as a labourer. Even then, the amount ofRs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal is absolutely inadequate. Towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life, permanent disability, loss of earning capacity and medical expenses, claimant isentitled to reasonable amounts. On account of amputation of left legup to knee level, he would lose several amenities in life and hisearning capacity also would come down substantially particularlywhen he claims to be a manual labourer. There would be difficulty forhim in getting married also. The amount of Rs.1,500/- awarded by theTribunal towards medical expenses is shockingly low. For a person,who has suffered amputation of leg, awarding Rs.1,500/- towardsmedical expenses is nothing but adding pain to suffering. He musthave spent reasonable amount for medicines, extra nourishment andattendant charges and transportation to the hospital particularly in viewof the fact that he sustained amputation of leg and he cannot walkeven small distances also without any support.

14. Considering all these circumstances, I hold that it is a fit casefor awarding the total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees twolakhs only) claimed by the claimant and the same is accordinglyawarded to him. Thus, the compensation of Rs.47,170/- awarded bythe Tribunal to the claimant is enhanced to Rs.2,00,000/-. The rate ofinterest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum fromthe date of O.P. till realization. It is made clear that the rate of intereston the compensation of Rs.47,170/- awarded by the Tribunal shall beat the rate of 9% per annum only as granted by the Tribunal. Theentire amount of enhanced compensation shall be kept in a fixeddeposit in a nationalized bank for a period of five (5) years. However,he is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued on the compensationevery month.

15. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal isallowed. No order as to costs.

____________________

P. SWAROOP REDDY, J

December 30, 2010.PV