Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 190 (TS)

Rasamalla Sanjeev Sanjeev Kumar v. Ch Kumar Anr

2020-02-03

K.LAKSHMAN

body2020
JUDGMENT K Lakshman, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.2/insurance company. 2. Feeling aggrieved by the award and decree dated 18.05.2006 in O.P.No.53 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cumII Additional District Judge, Warangal (for short 'the Tribunal), the appellant/claimant preferred the present appeal. 3. Vide the aforesaid award, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs. 1,59,436/- towards compensation as against claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 4. It is relevant to note that the Tribunal on consideration of the entire record gave a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 36V 7977. Admittedly, the 2nd respondent/insurance company did not file any appeal challenging the said finding and hence, the said finding attained finality. 5. The only question falls for consideration by this Court is with regard to the quantum of compensation. 6. On perusal of the entire record, there is no dispute that the age of the appellant was 30 years as on the date of accident. The Tribunal rightly considered the age of the appellant as 30 years. Having considered the age of the appellant as 30 years, the Tribunal has taken the multiplier 18' as per Second Schedule of the M.V.Act. As per the decision of the Apex Court in Sarala Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another, 2009 ACJ 1298 , for the age group of 26 30, the relevant multiplier applicable is 17'. 7. According to the appellant, his earning capacity was Rs. 25,000/- per month as he was doing business at the time of accident. Except oral evidence no document in proof of the same was filed with regard to the said claim of Rs. 25,000/- per month. The Tribunal considered the average monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 1500/- without giving any reason. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that as per the decision of the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa v Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd, 2011 13 SCC 236 even if the appellant is considered as coolie, his monthly income would be Rs. 4,500/-. As stated supra, the Tribunal did not assign any reason for considering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. Ltd, 2011 13 SCC 236 even if the appellant is considered as coolie, his monthly income would be Rs. 4,500/-. As stated supra, the Tribunal did not assign any reason for considering the monthly income of the appellant as Rs. 1500/- per month. By relying upon the principle held by the Apex Court in Ramachandrappa's case referred supra and also considering that even if a coolie is having earning capacity of Rs. 4,500/- per month, according to this Court, the monthly income of the appellant can be considered as Rs. 4,500/-, which is reasonable. 8. On consideration of the entire evidence on record including the documents, the Tribunal rightly granted an amount of Rs. 47,436/- towards medical expenses and according to this Court, the same is reasonable. The Tribunal has also awarded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, but as per Ex.A.2-wound certificate and also as per evidence, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. On consideration of the entire evidence including the documents and deposition of PW.2-doctor, the Tribunal gave a finding that all the fractures are united and therefore, having 25% disability. But the appellant did not file disability certificate. Even then as per Ex.A.2- wound certificate and deposition of PW.2-doctor, the disability can be assessed as 25%, and hence, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs. 2,29,500/ (Rs.4,500/- x 12 x 17 x 25%) towards disability. The appellant is also entitled for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs. 5000/- towards transportation charges and Rs. 1,000/- towards damages to the clothes. The Tribunal has granted Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of earning capacity of the appellant on the basis of Rs. 1500/- per month for a period of four months. As stated supra, the monthly earning capacity of the appellant was considered as Rs. 4,500/-, the appellant is entitled for Rs. 18,000/- towards loss of earning capacity for the period of four months. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has granted interest @ 6% per annum only without giving any reasons. According to this Court, it would be appropriate to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum. Thus in all, the appellant is entitled for compensation as specifically mentioned below, which is just and reasonable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 1) 25% disability Rs. According to this Court, it would be appropriate to grant interest @ 7.5% per annum. Thus in all, the appellant is entitled for compensation as specifically mentioned below, which is just and reasonable with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 1) 25% disability Rs. 2,29,500/- 2) Medical bills Rs. 47,436/- 3) Extra-nourishment Rs. 10,000/- 4) Loss of earnings Rs. 18,000/- 5) Transportation charges Rs. 5,000/- 6) Damages to clothes Rs. 1,000/- ____________ Rs.3,10,936/- _____________ 9. In the result, MACMA is allowed-in-part, modifying the decree and award dated 18.05.2006 in O.P.No.53 of 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Warangal enhancing compensation from Rs. 1,59,436/- to Rs. 3,10,936/- (Rupees three lakhs ten thousand nine hundred thirty six only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The respondents are directed to deposit or pay the compensation amount along with interest within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, after deducting the amount, if any, deposited earlier. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stands closed.