Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1419 (AP)

Gunnam Ven kamma v. M. Subba Rao

2003-11-18

GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2003
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the claimant against the award dated 3-9-2001 passed in o. P. No. 293 of 1998 by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal-cum-I Addil. District Judge, guntur. Claimant-appellant herein filed OF no. 293 of 1998 under Section 163-A of the motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in motor accident that occurred on 2-3-1998. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case as borne out from the record, are thus: on 2-3-1998 when the claimant along with her husband was proceeding towards nurajupalem village to catch fish and when they reached Kotha Nadipalem rice mill, a lorry bearing registration No. ABC 9234 coming from Repalle side with high speed dashed against the claimant as a result of which she received multiple injuries to her right leg and was shifted to Government general Hospital, Guntur, and her right leg below the knee was amputated. It was further stated that as on the date of the accident, the claimant was aged 25 years and was earning rs. 1,500/- per month as a cooli. That on account of the accident she was put to mental agony and pain she was permanently disabled and could not attend to her normal duties. Thus, sought for a compensation of rs. 1,50,000/ -. ( 3 ) THE claim of the claimant was opposed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company by filing written statement disputing the date, nature of the accident, age, income and avocation of the claimant. ( 4 ) BASING on the respective pleadings, the tribunal framed necessary issues. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the tribunal, on evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry bearing registration No. ABG 9234 by its driver and accordingly granted compensation of rs. 72,100/-under various heads. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, this appeal by the claimant. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant- appellant vehemently contends that the tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 600/- on an average in a month. Learned counsel also contends that even under the Minimum Wages Act the monthly income of a cooli is fixed at rs. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant- appellant vehemently contends that the tribunal grossly erred in taking the income of the claimant at Rs. 600/- on an average in a month. Learned counsel also contends that even under the Minimum Wages Act the monthly income of a cooli is fixed at rs. 1,500/- per month in support of his contention learned counsel relied on a division Bench decision of this Court in p. Eshwari Balarajaiah v. Md. Riyas. Learned counsel also contends that though it has come in evidence of the Doctor who treated the claimant and examined as P. W. 2 deposed that the claimant s right leg was amputated below the knee level, the Tribunal erred in granting a meager sum of Rs. 5,000/- each towards pain and suffering and extra nourishing and medical expenses. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company supports the impugned award passed by the Tribunal and submits that there are no merits warranting interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that inasmuch as the compensation assessed under the head loss of earning capacity and amenities in life is being paid in one time, some amounts have to be deducted towards uncertainties of life of the claimant. ( 7 ) THERE is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the tribunal, on evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry by its driver, which in the absence of contra evidence adduced by the insurance company warrants no interference. ( 8 ) COMING to the question of adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, it has come in evidence that the claimant prior to the date of the accident was working as a cooli and used to earn rs. 1,500/- per month. Though, it is true that no evidence worth inspiring the confidence of the Court was adduced in support of this claim, however, the plea that the claimant was working as cooli prior to the date of the accident and was earning Rs. 50/- cannot be eschewed totally from consideration. 1,500/- per month. Though, it is true that no evidence worth inspiring the confidence of the Court was adduced in support of this claim, however, the plea that the claimant was working as cooli prior to the date of the accident and was earning Rs. 50/- cannot be eschewed totally from consideration. The finding of the Tribunal that the claimant on an average would get work for 22 days in a month cannot be appreciated as the said finding is hypothetical and against the intent and object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, which is a beneficial piece of legislation enacted to render financial assistance to those victims or victim s dependents from the misery which befall on them on account of the unfortunate accidents. The Division bench of this Court in P. Eshwari Balarajaiah s case (1 supra) in respect of a cooli, in the light of the notification issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum wages act, took the monthly income at rs. 1500/- per month. Para 7 of the judgment reads thus:"the case of the claimants is that the deceased was doing business, but they could not produce any evidence to prove their case. Ultimately, the tribunal as well as the learned Single judge of this Court treated the deceased as a coolly and fixed the remuneration of Rs. 15/- (sic 50) per day. The earnings of the deceased fixed by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge of this court, as above, is grossly inadequate. In the notification issued by the government of Andhra Pradesh under the Minimum Wages Act, a minimum wage of Rs. 15/- per day has to be paid to an unskilled labour. Since minimum wage was fixed by the Government of andhra Pradesh for an unskilled labour, the Court has to necessarily follow the same, though the claimants are not able to bring this fact to the notice of this court to do substantial justice to the parties. After deducting 1/3rd of the wages for her personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 33/- per day. On this basis, the loss of dependency per year works out to rs. 11,880/- (i. e. Rs. 33/- x 30 days x 12 months ). After deducting 1/3rd of the wages for her personal expenses, the loss of dependency comes to Rs. 33/- per day. On this basis, the loss of dependency per year works out to rs. 11,880/- (i. e. Rs. 33/- x 30 days x 12 months ). Since the multiplier was correctly applied by the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge of this court, we do not want to interfere on that aspect. Accordingly, we direct the respondent to pay a sum of rs. 1,90,080/- towards loss of dependency. " ( 9 ) HENCE, following the ratio laid by the division Bench in the said judgment and also having regard to the fact that the right leg of the claimant was amputated below the knee level which is a curse to her and has to suffer throughout her life, I am inclined to take the monthly income of the claimant at rs. 1,500/- per month and considering the age of the claimant, as per the age reflected in the FIR, at 30 years, though in the evidence of p. W. 1 it has come as 25 years, the appropriate multiplier is 17. Inasmuch as the disability is assessed at 45% by P. W. 2 doctor who was examined to speak about the disability sustained, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of (Rs. 1,500/- x 12 x 17 = rs. 3,06,000/- - 55%) Rs. 1,37,700/- towards loss of future earnings and loss of amenities in life. Though learned counsel for the insurance company submits that some amounts have to be deducted towards the uncertainties oflife,iamnot inclined to do so in view of the fact that the claimant sustained amputation of her right let below keen level and though the disability assessed is 45%, the same has the effect of 100% disability, both in her day to day life and also in doing any work. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the claimant is also granted a sum of rs. 6,000/- towards pain and suffering and rs. 6,000/- towards extra nourishment, totalling to Rs. 1,49,700/ -. The amount awarded shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. ( 10 ) IN the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. No costs.