Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 905 (AP)

C. Prabhakar v. A. N. Raghava Venkatramana

2014-07-21

B.CHANDRA KUMAR

body2014
JUDGMENT:- 1. Dissatisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.1,26,200/- out of the total claim of Rs.3,00,000/- by order dated 24.01.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum VIII Additional District Judge (FTC), Chittoor (the Tribunal, for brevity), the claimant preferred this appeal. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are the respondents before the Tribunal and for the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their array before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- On 25.04.1999 at about 09:00 PM, the claimant (as a pillion rider) and another person by name Bujji (who was driving the vehicle) were travelling on a scooter bearing registration No.AP-03-3809. When the scooter reached Vinayaka Temple on Prakasam High Road, Chittoor, the offending lorry bearing registration No.ADC 345, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed against the scooter from behind on which the claimant was travelling. The claimant sustained multiple bleeding injuries on his left foot and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Chittoor for treatment after registration of case by Police, Chittoor, in Crime No.18 of 1999 against the driver of the offending lorry. Contending that he was aged 27 years and hale and healthy as on the date of accident; that he was working as sales man cum commission agent and earning Rs.3,500/- per month; that due to the accident, his left leg was completely damaged and the movements of the limb were completely restricted and that he cannot sit and walk properly and that he is suffering with unbearable pain while walking and that his marriage prospects were effected due to the injuries sustained by him, the claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. 4. The first respondent owner of the offending lorry remained ex parte. The second respondent Insurance Company contested the matter and resisted the claim of the claimant on various grounds. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of the rider of the scooter bearing No.AP-03-3809 and the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADC-345 or anyone of them? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom? 6. 5. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:- 1. Whether the accident was caused due to the composite negligence of the rider of the scooter bearing No.AP-03-3809 and the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADC-345 or anyone of them? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom? 6. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 5 were examined Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked. Exs.X.1 is also marked through the witness. No oral and documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. On the issue of negligence, the Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the driver of the offending lorry is responsible for the accident and the said finding is not in dispute in this appeal. On the issue of compensation, the Tribunal, on appreciation of evidence on record, took the monthly salary of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- and disability at 15% and by applying multiplier of 18, awarded an amount of Rs.61,200/- towards loss of earnings. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,26,200/- to the claimant. Dissatisfied with the same, the claimant is before this Court as appellant. 8. The main submission of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the left foot of the claimant was completely damaged in the accident and he was operated twice and that the claimant was admitted in hospital as in-patient for nearly 3 months. He further submitted that when the recitals of the disability certificate in Ex.A.10 clearly go to show that the claimant sustained 35% disability which is permanent in nature, the Tribunal erred in assessing the disability at 15%. It is also his submission that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation under the heads of pain and suffering, attendant charges, loss of enjoyment of life and towards disfigurement of the vital parts of the body of the claimant and that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the second respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. 10. 9. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the second respondent supported the award of the Tribunal and submitted that there is nothing to interfere with the reasoned award passed by the Tribunal. 10. P.W.4 is the doctor who examined the claimant and issued Ex.A.3 Wound Certificate. It shows that the claimant sustained lacerated injury 8 on dorsum of left foot exposing tendons. P.W.5 is another doctor who is a member of the Medical Board, Chittoor. According to him, the claimant sustained permanent disability and the movements of his left ankle joints are restricted and he cannot walk for long distances and he cannot sit in a squatting position and he cannot do any hard work and he has to suffer with these disabilities throughout his life. P.W.5 also specifically deposed that the claimant has to limp through out his life. It is the case of the claimant that he was working as sales man cum commission agent. According to P.W.3, the total income of the claimant is Rs.3,500/- per month. In case of injuries, the doctors have to examine the disability sustained by the injured. The Courts and the Tribunals have to examine as to how the disability sustained by a claimant affects his normal duties which he was doing prior to the date of accident. A sales man has to move from shop to shop or from village to village during the course of his job. When a person is limping and he cannot do any hard work, it will be difficult for such a person to work as a sales man. It appears that except doing sedentary type of job, the claimant cannot do any other hard work. Thus, the physical disability resulting in functional disability has to be assessed having regard to the nature of work being done by the injured. 11. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to take the loss of earnings at 50%. According to the claimant, he was earning Rs.3,500/- per month in all. In the circumstances, it would be just and reasonable to take the average income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. As stated supra, if the loss of earnings is taken at 50%, the monthly income would come to Rs.2,000/- and the annual income would come to Rs.24,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is 18. In the circumstances, it would be just and reasonable to take the average income of the claimant as Rs.4,000/- per month. As stated supra, if the loss of earnings is taken at 50%, the monthly income would come to Rs.2,000/- and the annual income would come to Rs.24,000/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant is 18. Thus, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.4,32,000/- (Rs.24,000/- x 18). The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of enjoyment of life and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to P.W.1, he was treated as In-patient for three months and subsequently, he was bed-ridden for one and half year after surgery. Thus, it is clear that he could not do any work for a period of one year. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.48,000/- (Rs.4,000/- x 12) towards loss of earnings for the period of treatment. I also consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. 12. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupess five lakhs only) (Rs.4,32,000/- + Rs.48,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-). The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum which appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. It is settled law that irrespective of the amount claimed by the claimants, the Courts may award compensation which appears to be just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. Since the compensation now awarded is more than the compensation claimed by the claimant, the claimant is directed to pay the deficit Court fee before obtaining the decree. 14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. 15. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.