1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant against the Award and Decree dated 10.01.2008 in O.P.No.522 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned Award’) passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal-cum-I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XV Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Tribunal’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred as they were arrayed before the learned Tribunal.
BRIEF FACTS:
3. The brief facts of the case as borne out from record are that the claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road traffic accident that occurred on 01.10.2004. It is the specific case of the claimant that on 01.10.2004, while he was proceeding from Mehdipatnam to Nampally on his Yamaha motorcycle bearing registration No.AP 13 8608, near Saleem Function Hall, Lakadi Ka Pool, Hyderabad, one DCM Van bearing registration No.AHT 5460 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’) came in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the claimant’s motorcycle from behind. As a result, the claimant fell down, suffered grievous injuries and was taken to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein the doctors diagnosed that he had suffered crush injuries to the left ankle with instability and fracture of the medial malleolus, crush injuries to both hands and other multiple injuries all over the body. The claimant was alleged to have been earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running an STD booth. The claimant pleaded that since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the insured and insurer of the offending vehicle, are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.
4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte. The respondent No.2 filed counter denying the material averments of claim petition including the manner of the accident and that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence of the deceased and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
5. Based on the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal framed three issues. During the course of trial, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and got marked Exs.A1 to A11 on behalf of the claimant. On behalf of respondent No.2, except marking the copy of the insurance policy under Ex.B1, no other evidence was adduced.
FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL:
6. The learned Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, awarded compensation of Rs.1,26,000/-. Aggrieved thereby the claimant preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. Heard Sri Jagathpal Reddy Kasi Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri D.V.A.S. Ravi Prasad, learned counsel on record for the claimant, Sri N.J. Sunil Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the entire material on record including the grounds of Appeal.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION:
8. On considering the rival contentions, the only point that arises for determination in the present appeal is:
“Whether the appellant/claimant made out any valid and sustainable grounds for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal and consequent interference with the impugned Award?”
ANALYSIS:
9. Admittedly, neither of the respondents has preferred any appeal against the impugned Award. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident as the learned Tribunal while relying on the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence of Exs.A1 to A3 i.e., certified copies of FIR, charge sheet and Medico Legal Case record respectively, answered issue No.1 holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the offending vehicle.
10. As per the version of the claimant, he suffered grievous injuries i.e., fracture of Medial Mallulious left and 2.10 x 6 cm lacerated injury over lateral aspect of left ankle exposed the joint. In this connection, reliance was placed on the oral evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who are the medical officers. PW2 is the doctor, who had produced the medical records pertaining to the claimant at Apollo Hospital. Through the evidence of PW2, Exs.A3 to A7 i.e., certified copy of Medico Legal Case record, discharge summary issued by Apollo hospital, medical prescriptions, clinical reports and medical bills respectively, were marked. PW3 is the Orthopedic Consultant Surgeon at Apollo Hospital, who deposed about the injuries and the permanent disability at 15% suffered by the claimant.
11. The main grievance of the claimant is that the learned Tribunal, though considered the disability at 15%, erred in assessing the income of the claimant on lesser side. The learned counsel for the claimants contended that though the claimant alleged to have been earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running STD booth, the learned Tribunal failed to consider the same and assessed the notional income of the injured at Rs.15,000/- per annum.
12. Learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq and Ors. Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited ((2014) 2 SCC 735), wherein it is held that:
“9. There is no reason, in the instant case for the Tribunal and the High Court to ask for evidence of monthly income of the appellant/claimant. On the other hand, going by the present state of economy and the rising prices in agricultural products, we are inclined to believe that a vegetable vendor is reasonably capable of earning Rs.6,500/- per month.”
13. In the aforesaid decision, the occupation of the claimant was ‘vegetable vendor’ and whereas in the instant case, the occupation of the claimant was running a STD booth. Moreover, the accident in the aforesaid decision pertains to the year 2008 and whereas in the instant case, the accident is of the year 2004. Hence, the facts stated in the aforesaid decision, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
14. Admittedly, the claimant did not file any documentary evidence to prove that he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running STD booth. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to assess the salary of the claimant at Rs.4,500/- per month in terms of Ramachandrappa v. The Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company (AIR 2011 Supreme Court 2951), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court assessed the salary of a coolie at Rs.4,500/- per month. As seen from the record, the claimant alleged to have suffered grievous injuries. It is settled law that future prospects are required to be considered even in cases of claimant/injured, who had suffered grievous injuries. Since the claimant, who was aged 21 years and self employed, suffered grievous injuries, he is entitled for future prospects at 40%. Hence, the monthly income of the claimant along with future prospects comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1,800/-). The annual income of the appellant/claimant accordingly comes to Rs.75,600/- [Rs.6,300/- x 12 months].
15. It is pertinent to note that the learned Tribunal, adopted multiplier ‘16’ for assessing loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability. However, it is to be seen that the claimant was aged 21 years, as such, the relevant multiplier for the age of the claimant is ‘18’ in terms of the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Sarla Verma V. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009 ACJ 1298). After the multiplying the annual income of the claimant with relevant multiplier and 15% permanent disability, the loss of future earning capacity on account of permanent disability comes to Rs.2,04,120/- (Rs.75,600/- x 18 x 15%).
16. A careful perusal of the impugned Award, it is evident that except awarding compensation under the heads, ‘pain and suffering’, ‘medical expenses’ and ‘loss of future earning capacity due to permanent disability’, the learned Tribunal failed to award, compensation under various other heads i.e., ‘transportation expenses’, ‘attendant charges’, ‘extra nourishment’ and ‘loss of earnings’.
17. Since the claimant suffered grievous injuries, he is required to take nutritious and vitamin supplements to recover quickly from his injuries. Further, he requires an attendant to discharge his day to day activities during the bedridden period. Moreover, the claimant would have spent considerable amount towards transportation for visiting different hospitals and laboratories. Therefore, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- towards ‘transportation’ and ‘damage to clothing’, Rs.6,000/- towards ‘attendant charges’ and Rs.10,000/- towards ‘extra nourishment’.
18. It is obvious that during bedridden period, it is impossible for a person, who had suffered grievous injuries, to attend to his occupation. Considering the nature of the treatment obtained by the claimant and the nature of injuries suffered by him, this Court is inclined to award Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- x 3 months) towards ‘loss of earnings during treatment period’.
19. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by the claimants and also the treatment obtained by him, the learned Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.20,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’ and Rs.70,000/- towards ‘medical expenses’. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the aforesaid findings of the learned Tribunal.
20. Thus, in all, the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.3,28,620/- and the details of which are as under:
21. Though the claimant had restricted his claim to Rs.3,00,000/, it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others (2003 ACJ 12) that there is no restriction that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal or the Court should invariably be limited to the amount claimed in the claim petition, provided the claimant is otherwise found entitled to such compensation on the basis of the evidence available on record.
22. It is to be seen that the learned Tribunal awarded rate of interest on compensation at 6% per annum, which is appearing to be on lesser side. This Court has been consistently awarding rate of interest on the compensation amount at 7.5% per annum in claims arising under the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, this Court is inclined to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal from 6% to 7.5% per annum.
23. Since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and as the insurance policy under Ex.B1 was subsisting as on the date of the accident, the learned Tribunal rightly fixed the liability of payment of compensation on the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally, who are the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively.
CONCLUSION:
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding compensation, which is appearing to be meager. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be modified to the extent of above observations.
RESULT:
25. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the learned Tribunal from Rs.1,26,000/- to Rs.3,28,620/-, which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondents are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with accrued interest without furnishing any security, however, subject to deposit of deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation amount. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
