Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1414 (AP)

Gudipati Venkateshwarlu v. M. Srinivas Goud

2014-11-24

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2014
Judgment : The claimant, aggrieved by the award dated 08.11.2005, passed in OP No.190 of 2005 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, granting compensation of Rs.2,31,800/- out of the claim of Rs.6,00,000/-, filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. Since the quantum of compensation alone is in question in this appeal and the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to negligence of the offending vehicle is not in dispute, there is no need to discuss that aspect. The claimants case is that he sustained injuries in the accident on 07.12.2002. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Munagala. Subsequently, he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. He was treated as inpatient from 08.12.2002 to 01.01.2003 in Osmania General Hospital. Ex.A6 reveals that the injuries were diagnosed as posterior dislocation of right knee and Grade-I composite fracture of tibia and fibula lower middle 1/3rd. Subsequently the claimant has taken treatment from Mother Theresa Orthopedic and Accident Care Hospital, Kodad. Again operation was conducted. As there is infection his right toe was amputated. Again there was infection, therefore again operation was conducted and his right leg was amputated below the knee on 05.04.2003. The claimant filed medical bills for Rs.39,000/- issued by Mother Theresa Orthopedic and Accident Care Hospital, Kodad. The claimant also obtained disability certificate from the medical board showing that he sustained 60% disability. He filed number of medical bills for Rs.60,501/- under Ex.A9. The claimant also filed number of x-rays and documents in support of his case. He has also examined Dr. M. Lakshmi Prasad and Dr. K. Haranath as PWs.2 and 3. PW.2 Dr. M. Lakshmi Prasad from Mother Theresa Orthopedic and Accident Care Hospital, Kodad, has deposed about the treatment, operations and medical expenses incurred by the claimant. PW.2 deposed that the claimant cannot do labour or mason work and his loss of earnings is 90%. According to PW.2 the claimant requires an attendant to attend calls of nature. The claimant also examined Dr. K. Haranath who is member of the District Medical Board. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the amount awarded is meager and the Tribunal should have awarded reasonable amount of compensation. According to PW.2 the claimant requires an attendant to attend calls of nature. The claimant also examined Dr. K. Haranath who is member of the District Medical Board. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the amount awarded is meager and the Tribunal should have awarded reasonable amount of compensation. In support of his contention he has relied on the decisions reported in Divisional Controller, KSRTC v. Mahadeva Shetty and another (2003(5) ALD 119(SC)) and B.T. Krishnappa v. D.M. United Insurance Co.Ltd., and another (2010 (5) ALD 85(SC)). In case of injuries, the nature of injuries, period of treatment, operations undergone by the claimant and the disability sustained by the injured have to be considered. The Tribunal should assess the functional disability basing upon the nature of work being done by the claimant prior to the date of accident. In case of amputation or stiffness the labourers, carpenters, agricultural labourers or any other person who has to do hard work will not be in a position to do the same work after the accident. In fact there would be total loss of earnings. Now a days, able bodied persons also may not get regular work. Therefore, the possibility of getting work in case where a person sustained permanent disability due to amputation may be doubtful. Such persons have to sit in their houses and if possible do some work with their hands, thus except doing some work while sitting they cannot do any other work. It may be difficult for them to go out of their house even to attend calls of nature and the inconvenience and disability would continue through out their life. They may require the assistance of some other person or they have to use a stick or some other support to cover even small distance by walk. So, in the circumstances, I am of the view that the loss of earnings will not be less than 75%. According to the claimant he was working as a mason and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no material to disbelieve the same. He was aged about 32 years. In fact the future prospects also have to be taken into consideration. In the circumstances, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3000/- per month and 75% of the same would come to Rs.2250/- and annual loss of earnings would come to Rs.27,000/-. There is no material to disbelieve the same. He was aged about 32 years. In fact the future prospects also have to be taken into consideration. In the circumstances, the income of the claimant is taken at Rs.3000/- per month and 75% of the same would come to Rs.2250/- and annual loss of earnings would come to Rs.27,000/-. If the same is multiplied with 16 the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.4,32,000/-. Having regard to the nature of injuries and the operations and amputations undergone by the claimant, I consider it just and reasonable to award Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering. The claimant filed medical bills to a tune of Rs.90,000/-. In the circumstances, the claimant is awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses and other miscellaneous expenses. The claimant is also awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income for the period of treatment for ten months, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.10,000/- towards disability, inconvenience and discomfort, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,67,000/-. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh ( (2013) 9 SCC 54 ), irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants towards compensation it is the duty of the Courts to award just and reasonable compensation. However, the claimants have to pay the deficit court fees. Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.6,67,000/-. The rate of interest shall be at 9% p.a., from the date of petition till realization. The claimant is directed to pay deficit court fee, even otherwise the Tribunal, after the respondents deposited the compensation amount, may deduct the amount required for payment of deficit court fee and pay the remaining compensation amount to the claimant. However, in the circumstances, no costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.