CIVIL APPEAL 1238 of 2005 on 2 December 2002

JUDGMENT:

Having got dissatisfied [with ][the ][award ][of ][Rs'3,03,851/- ][as]compensation by [the order ][dated ][01.02'2005 ][in ][O'P' No'346 ][of ][2003]onthefileoftheChairman,MotorAccidentsClaimsTribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, [Nalgonda ][(for ][short, ]['the ][Tribunal') ][as]claim [of ][Rs.5,00,000/- laid under ][Section ][166 ][of ][the ][Motor]against the VehiclesAct,lg8S(forshort,'theAct')fortheinjuriessustainedbythe appellant-petitioner [in ][a ][roa<l ][accident, ][the ][instant ][appeal ][is]preferred under Section [173 ][of ][the ][Act ][seeking ][enhancement ][of]compensation.

2. The appellant herein [is ][the petitioner, ][while ][respondent]Nos.l and 2 herein, [who ][are ][ownei ][and insurer ][of ][the ][lorry ][bearing]registration No.AP llW [6799, ][are ][respondent ][Nos'l ][and ][2,]respectively, in the original [petition.]

3. For the sake of [convenience, ][the ][parties ][hereinafter]referred to as they were [arrayed ][t'efore the ][Tribunal ][in ][the original]petition.

4. The facts in brief are lhat on 31.01.2003 [at ][about ][10-30]p.m., the petitioner along with twc, others [were ][travelling ][in ][an ][auto]rickshaw bearing registration No.1.P 2lT [450, during ][which time, ][a]lorry bearing registration No.AP [1 ]lW [5799 ][driven ][in ][a ][rash ][and]

negligent manner at high speed came and dashed the auto rickshaw.While the other two passengers died instantly, the petitioner receivedinjuries to his right leg and his left leg was amputated upto knee joint.The petitioner, claiming that he was a lorry driver earning Rs.3,000/-per month and due to amputation of left leg he became disabled,sought a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- initially and, later, amended the claimraising it to Rs.5,00,000/- froin respondent Nos.l and 2, who areowner and insurer of the lorry respectively.

5. Respondent No.l-owner remained ex parte. RespondentNo.2-insurer opposed the claim by raising various pleas.

6. Basing on the said plr:adings,, the Tribunal formulated thepoint for deterrnination tlrus:

"Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation ofRs.5,00,000/- from R-1 and R-2 for the rash, negligentand high speed driving of lorry, AP-I1-W-6799, by itsdriver on 3 I - I -2003 at 10.30 p.m. causing fracture to hisleft leg culminating in its amputation above right knee,driver on 3 I - I -2003 at 10.30 p.m. causing fracture to hisleft leg culminating in its amputation above right knee,consequent in patient treatment and follow up treatment,etc.?"etc.?"

7. During enquiry, the petitioner examined himself asP.W. I besides examining two doctors as P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A. I to A.7 to substantiate his claim; whereas, on behalf of No.2-Insurance [Company, ][no ][witnesses ][were ][examined,]respondent but a copy of insurance [policy ][was ][marked ][as ][Ex.B.1 ][on ][consent']

8. On appraisal of evidence [on ][record, ][the Tribunal ][held]that the accident had occurred [due to ][rash ][and ][negligent ][driving of ][the]driver of the lorry. As [regards determination ][of ][compensation, ][the]Tribunal, having found from [Ex.A.7 ][that ][the ][petitioner ][was ][a ][driver ][of]light motor vehicle by [profession, ][fixed ][monthly ][earnings ][at]Rs.1,874/- as per G.O.Ms.No.80, [l-abour, ][Employment ][and ][Training](LAB-II) Dept., dated 27.07.2000 and assessed [disability ][at ][70%o ][and]'17' [as ]the [petitioner ][was 25 years ][old ][on the ][date]applying multiplier of accident, arrived the loss of futurr: [eaming ][capacity ][atRs.2,67 ],6071-besides granting Pis.|1,2441- towards [loss ][of ][temporary ][earnings ][as]the petitioner had undergone skin [grafting ][twice ][on ][10.03.2003 ][and]04.03.2003, and also Rs.15,000/- [art'i Rs.10,000/- ][for ][laceration post-]aspect ofright thigh and right [leg, nraking ][a ][total ][sum ][ofRs.3'03,851/-]with interest at 8oh per annum [from the ][date ][of filing ][of ][petition ][till]dateof award and at 5Yo [per ]annum [from the ][date ][of ][awardtill ][date ][of]deposit or realization from both resoondent Nos. [1 ][and ][2.]

9. It is the aforesaid order which is under challenge [in ]theinstant appeal contending in the grounds that despite the petitionersustaining fractures to both legs and left leg was amputated above theknee [joint ]and, though, disability was assessed at 7 0o/o, for all practicalpurposes, it has to be construed as 100% and, thereby, sought to grantthe balance amount.

i0. Heard Sri Chandra Sekhar Reddy Gopireddy, leamedcounsel for the appellant-petitioner, and Sri Sriman, leamed StandingCounsel for respondent No.2-lnsurance Company.

11. Perused the order and the evidence on record, both, oraland documentary,let in by the petitioner. It is clear from the orderand the material on record, more particularly, the evidence of p.Ws.2and 3 that the petitioner sustained amputation of left leg above kneejoint. Besides the same, he sustained two fractures to his right ieg, asdescribed in Ex.A.4. During ihe course of arguments, learnedStanding Counsel for respondent No.2-Insurnce Company fairlyconcedes that in view of the anrputation of left leg of the petitionerand the petitioner being a driver, ..vhich finding was recorded by theTribunal, the disability can be rrssessed at l00yo and, therefore,treating the disability as r00o/o and taking multiplier .1g' in view ofthe decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma & others v.Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherl, but however, maintainingthat the income of the petitioner as driver at Rs.1,g74l- per month as itis based on the minimum wages provided by the relevant order, thecompensation is required to be determined, in which case, it works outto Rs.4,04,7841- (Rs.1,874/- x i2. x 18). Besides the same, theamounts granted by the Tribunal R.s.ll,244l- towards temporary lossofearnings, Rs.15,000/- and Rs.10.000/- for laceration post-aspect of\right thigh and right leg are maintained.

12. Thus, the [petitioner ][is ][entitled ][to a ][total ][sum ][of]Rs.4,41,028/- (Rupees four [lakh forty ][one ][thousand and ][twenty ][eight)]as against Rs.3,03,8511 [granted ][by ][the ][Tribunal ][towards]compensation and the same [is accorJingly ][granted. ][So ][far ][as ][the ][rate]of interest is concemed, the [Tribunal ][granted ][the ][same ][at ][8% ][per]annum from the date of filing [of ][the ][original petition ][till ][date ][of ][award]and at 5oh per annum from the date [o['award ][till ][realization. ][With]regard to rate of interest at [80% ][per ][annum ][from ][the ][date ][of filing ][of]the original petition till date of award [the ][same ][is ][maintained on ][the]amount granted by the Tribunal. llowever, [the rate ][of ][interest at ][50lo]per annum granted by the Tribunal so far as [the ][post-award ][period ][is]concerned, the same is enhanced t<t [7 ][.5%o ][per ][annum on ][the ][amount]granted by the Tribunal in view of the decision of [the ][Hon'ble]S upreme Court in Rajesh and others v. Rajbir [Singh ][and ][others2]Further, on the enhanced amount, rate of [interest at ][7.5Yo ][is ][granted]from the date of petition till realization.

1 3. Accordingly, the instant appeal is allowed in [part]moditying the order passed by the Tribunal, by enhancing thecompensation, as indicated above. and confirming the same in allother respects. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel [thereto. ][miscellaneous ][applications' ][if ][any]

T4,

pending in the [instant ][appeal, ][stand ][closed']

sD/'P [V ][K- ]s+iYi$f5tItxfi

Note: Amended [as ][per Court Order ][dated ][21101t201.9^made ][in ][lA ][No ][2 of ][2019]in Rev.cMP [No.3B63 ]"f [20i;i;"r'ilci'in ][r'ro ]-"r9v91 [rz:e ][9f ]rarfs [,?005 as ]thirtv [follows: Read ]seven thousand[the]compensation [as ][ns ][r ][t,:zlforjtl'in"'p!"t ]two hundred [onty; ][in.t"'o-"oi' ][dt+2r'ozal- ][(Rupees ][four ][lakhs ][forty ][one]thousand [twenty eight ][onrvl ]["ir,e' ][,rnenilJ ][ori"r ][substitute ][the ][earlier ][order]liit"itzoiizot'owiicr,wa'sdlspatcned [oao2to7t2o16 ]sd/.T.sRtNrvAS

ASSISTANT [REGISTRAR]\\- '

//TRUE CoPY//

SECTION [OFFICER]

1l rh" rh" [[prin.ipal ][Motor Accidents ]][[Motor Accidents ]][[Claims ]][Tribunal' ][Nafs9l93' ][(with records)][[Advocate ]][[(oPuc)]][[Advocate ]][[(oPuc)]]

1l rh" rh" [[prin.ipal ][Motor Accidents ]][[Motor Accidents ]][[Claims ]]i. aj"" [cb;;ariCrr.nar.u ][s"rtnar ][Reddv' ][[Advocate ]][[(oPuc)]]i. aj"" [cb;;ariCrr.nar.u ][s"rtnar ][Reddv' ][[Advocate ]][[(oPuc)]]

aj"" cc [[to ][stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[Sriman, Advocate ]][(oPUc)]cc [[to ][stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[Sriman, Advocate ]][(oPUc)];. o;; o;; cc [[to ][stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[stl ][Sriman, Advocate ]][[Sriman, Advocate ]];. o;; o;; 4. The Section [oni."r, ][cJillii"., ][irigh ][C"r,1 ][of ][relansana ][at Hyderabad']4. The Section [oni."r, ][cJillii"., ][irigh ][C"r,1 ][of ][relansana ][at Hyderabad']

5. Two [CD ][Copies]

GLN/Kj.

HIGH [COURT]

DATE/02 16DATED: [21][ 10112019]

AMENDED [JUDGMENT]MACMA.N [o.1238 ][of ][2005]

PARTLY [ALLOWING THE ][APPEAL ][WITHOUT COSTS']

..-\ ^\?\{pi-

'r).t S I4)-...)i05 I02litt[B (:_.1--r.*/.A,4/

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABADFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESHFOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF APRILTWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.SHANKAR NARAYANA

MACMA.No. ['1238 ]OF 2005

Between:

Pentaboina Venkateshwarlu, S/o. Gopaiah

..,-. APPELLANT / CLAIMANT

AND

1 Bommidi Ranga Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Reddy, Owner of LorryLorry Reddy, S/o. Nagi Reddy, Reddy, Owner of LorryLorry2 The New lndia Assurance Company Limited, Represented by its Divisionall\,4anager, D.O., At Anasuya Complex, Opp: Liberty, Himayathnagar,l\,4anager, D.O., At Anasuya Complex, Opp: Liberty, Himayathnagar,

(Policy No.610103131102104752, valid from 02.12.2002 to 01 .12.2003 ofBasheerbagh, Hyderabad)Basheerbagh, Hyderabad)

...,. RESPONDENTS

Appeal under Section 173 of lV.V.Act., against the decree of the Court ofthe Principal lvlotor Accrdents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, dated 01-02-2005 inOP.No: 346 of 2003.the Principal lvlotor Accrdents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, dated 01-02-2005 inOP.No: 346 of 2003.

This Appeal coming on for hearing, upon perusing the lVlemorandum ofAppeal, the Order of the Lower Court and the material papers in the case andupon hearing the arguments of Sri. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, Gopi Reddy,Appellant and of Sri. Sriman, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 and theRespondent No.'1 not appearing in person or by Advocate.

This Court while allowing this Appeal in part and in modification of thedecree of the Lower Court doth order and decree as follows:

1. that the petitioner / appellant be and hereby is entitled to a totalcompensation of Rs.11,37,2001 (rupees eleven lakhs thirty seven thousandtwo hundred only) as against Rs.3,03,8511 [granted ]by the tribunal and asagainst an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the claimant.compensation of Rs.11,37,2001 (rupees eleven lakhs thirty seven thousandtwo hundred only) as against Rs.3,03,8511 [granted ]by the tribunal and asagainst an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- claimed by the claimant.

2. that the rate of interest granted by the tribunal at 8o/o [p.a. ]from the date offiling of O.P. till date of award be and hereby maintained.filing of O.P. till date of award be and hereby maintained.

3, that total enhanced compensation of Rs.8,33,349/- amount shall carryinterest at the rate of 7.5o/o from the date of [petition ]till realization.interest at the rate of 7.5o/o from the date of [petition ]till realization.

4. that save as aforesaid, the decree of the Lowei Court do stands confirmedin all other respects; andin all other respects; and

5. that there be no [order ][as ][to costs ][in ][this Appeal']

SD/. P.V.K. SAryANARAYANAASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Note: That the decree [is ][amended ][as ][per ][the ][orders ][of ][Hon'ble ][court ][dated]2lt}ll2}lgandmadeinreviewCIr/PNo.3B63of2016inMACIMANo.123Bl200S Amended [decree is issued ][accordingly. ]

Sd/-T.SRINIVASASSISTANT REGISTRAR

Note: Amended as [per ][court ][order ][dated ][2110112019 ][made ][in ][lA ][No.2/2019 ][in]Rev.CMP No.3863/2016 [in ][MACIT/A ][No.1238/2005 by replacing ][the clause ][1 ][of]the decree as follows [: ][That ][the ][appellant ][be ][and ][hereby ][is ][entitled ][to]Rs.11,37,2001 [(Rupees ][eleven ][lakhs ][thirty ][seven ][thousand ][two ][hundred ][only)]as against total compensation [of ][Rs.4,4"1 ][,028/- (Rupees ][four ][lakhs ][forty ][one]thouJand twenty eight [only) ][against ][the ][amount ][of ][5,00,0001 claimed by ][the]appellant in the Tribunal.

To

'1 . The Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda'

2. The Section Officer, [CD ][Section, ][High ][Court ][of ][Telangana at Hyderabad']

3. Two CD Copies

GLMkj.

HIGH COURT

DATED:07t0412 [16]DED: 2110112019DATED:110112019

AMENDED DECREE:MACMA.N o.1238 of [2005]

PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL [WITHOUT COSTS.]