Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 418 (AP)

Bommaboina Ramakrishna v. Gajjala Pulla Reddy Anr

2020-06-15

BATTU DEVANAND

body2020
JUDGMENT Battu Devanand, J. - This appeal has been filed by the petitioner in MVOP.No.249 of 2003 aggrieved by the decree and order, dated 18.11.2006 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Court, Kadapa at Proddatur (for short "the tribunal") in awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,20,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.06.2002 and sought for enhancement of compensation. 2. The parties hereinafter referred to as petitioner and respondents as arrayed in the Tribunal. 3. The factual matrix of the case is thus: a) The case of the petitioner is that on 15.06.2002 the petitioner was going on his bicycle towards his tailoring shop. While he was near the cotton mill, the lorry bearing No.A.P.07 V 1212 (hereinafter referred to as "crime vehicle") of 1st respondent coming in the opposite direction, in high speed and negligent manner and dashed the bicycle of the petitioner. The petitioner fell on the road and received severe injuries. The driver of the lorry ran away from the scene. The petitioner was admitted in the Government Hospital, Kadapa. He spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards treatment. He suffered disability and he is not able to work. Before the accident, the petitioner was earning good amount from tailoring. The petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/-. The driver of the lorry was prosecuted in a criminal case. 4. The 1st respondent filed counter contending that the petition is not maintainable. He admitted that he is owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle was insured with 2nd respondent and as such the 1st respondent is not liable to pay compensation and requested to dismiss the petition. 5. The 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition and contended that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and the petitioner contributed to the accident by his negligence without observing the traffic. He sought dismissal of the petition. 6. During trial, the petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. He sought dismissal of the petition. 6. During trial, the petitioner examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.6. No evidence adduced on behalf of the respondents. 7. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the tribunal passed decree and order holding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e., Lorry bearing No.A.P.07 V 1212 belonging to the 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent and as such they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Compensation is concerned, the tribunal awarded Rs.70,000/- with costs and interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Heard Sri K. Naga Phanindra, Advocate representing Sri K. Ratangapani Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company and Sri J. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the tribunal erroneously awarded an amount of Rs.70,000/- without considering the injuries sustained and the disability suffered by the petitioner. The tribunal ought to have awarded the entire compensation amount including medical expenses basing on the evidence of the doctor who was examined as PW.2. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company argued that the order of the tribunal is basing on the evidence available on record and there is no need to revise the same and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Basing on the rival contentions of the learned counsel and evidence available on record, it is clear that there is no any dispute with regard to the aspect of rash and negligence driving of the driver of the 1 st respondent and liability aspect. 12. The only issue to be considered in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable or needs enhancement? 13. As per the cause title of the claim petition, the petitioner was aged 20 years and he was working as a tailor. The petitioner was earning good amount from tailoring. He sustained injuries due to which he suffered disability and not able to work. He spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. 13. As per the cause title of the claim petition, the petitioner was aged 20 years and he was working as a tailor. The petitioner was earning good amount from tailoring. He sustained injuries due to which he suffered disability and not able to work. He spent more than Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The doctor who treated the petitioner and who was also a member of the District Medical Board at the time of accident was examined as PW.2. The doctor deposed that the petitioner's left leg was shortened by two inches due to the injuries sustained in the accident. In Ex.A.2, copy of wound certificate, the fracture of the bone was mentioned. PW.2 evaluated the disability at 45%. The petitioner also filed medical bills for more than Rs.30,000/-. The income certificate filed and marked under Ex.A.6 was not proved by examining the person who issued it. 14. The tribunal though it was considered that the petitioner suffered shortening of the leg as deposed by PW.2 and observing that the shortening of the leg is a disabled to any person in the absence of proof of income, the tribunal awarded Rs.35,000/- towards disability of the shortening of the leg. For fracture injury to the leg Rs.20,000/- was granted. Rs.12,000/- was granted towards medical expenses, pain and extra nourishment, Rs.3,000/- was granted towards loss of earnings. In total the tribunal granted Rs.70,000/- to the petitioner as compensation. In my considered opinion, the procedure followed by the tribunal to determine the compensation is not correct. 15. As and when the doctor who treated the petitioner and also a member of the District Medical Board deposed that the petitioner suffered disability at 45% by shortening of the leg by two inches due to the injury sustained in the accident, it has to be considered that the petitioner could not able to perform his work as tailor, as he does earlier. In view of the evidence available on record, the disability suffered by the petitioner and his poor background, this Court is of the opinion that the loss caused to the petitioner cannot be assessed in a mathematical manner. But, however, this Court has to consider to compensate the petitioner's trauma by awarding just, reasonable and equitable compensation to enable the petitioner to lead his remaining life comfortably. 16. But, however, this Court has to consider to compensate the petitioner's trauma by awarding just, reasonable and equitable compensation to enable the petitioner to lead his remaining life comfortably. 16. As per the settled law, the daily wage workers and coolies income is being considered at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. In fact, as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar, (2001) 8 SCC 197 in which it was held that in the absence of the proof of earnings, minimum of Rs.3,000/- per month can be taken. In the light of the said judgment, a learned single judge of the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in T. Rama Krishna vs. Valluri Babu Rao and 3 others,2007 1 ALD 453 fixed the income of the petitioner in the absence of any proof at the rate of Rs.3,500/- was taken to determine the compensation therein. By following the same principle, the monthly income of the petitioner is considered at the rate of Rs.3,500/- per month. By applying relevant multiplier "18", considering the age of the petitioner as 20 years at the time of accident, and in the light of the 45% of the disability suffered by the petitioner as per the evidence of PW.2, doctor, the loss of the earning capacity of the petitioner for the injury sustained and disability suffered by him can be assessed as under including the compensation for which under other heads the petitioner is entitled: (a) loss of earning capacity: Rs.3,500/- x (45/100)=1575x12x18= : Rs. 3,40,200-00 (b) for medical expenses : Rs. 20,000-00 (c) pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000-00 (d) attendant and transport charges : Rs. 10,000-00 (e) extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000-00 17. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.4,00,200/-. 18. 3,40,200-00 (b) for medical expenses : Rs. 20,000-00 (c) pain and suffering : Rs. 25,000-00 (d) attendant and transport charges : Rs. 10,000-00 (e) extra nourishment : Rs. 5,000-00 17. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner is entitled for the total compensation of Rs.4,00,200/-. 18. Basing on the evidence available on record and facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is granting compensation more than the claim made which is just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation and the view of this Court is supported by the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh, (2003) ACJ 12 (SC) held as follows: "(10) Thereafter Section 168 empowers the claims tribunal 'make an award determining the amount of compensation which appears to it to be just.' Therefore, only requirement for determining the compensation is that it must be 'just'. There is no other limitation or restriction on its power for awarding just compensation." 19. The said principle was followed in the later decisions in Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Mohd. Nasir, (2009) ACJ 2742 (SC) Ningamma v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2009) ACJ 2020 (SC) and Rajesh and others v. Rajbir Singh and others, (2013) ACJ 1403 in which it was held that tribunal/Court has a duty, irrespective of the claims made in the application, if any, to properly award a just, equitable, fair and reasonable compensation, if necessary, ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation. 20. In the result, the MACMA No.2020 of 2009 is allowed and ordered as follows: (a) the compensation amount of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.4,00,200/- (Rupees four lakh and two hundred only); (b) the enhanced amount of Rs.3,30,200/- shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of OP till the date of realization; (c) the tribunal shall disburse the compensation amount after payment of the requisite Court Fee on the enhanced amount. (d) the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable to pay the entire compensation amount to the petitioner; (e) the respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the compensation amount within one (01) month from the date of receipt of this judgment, failing which execution can be taken out against them; (f) on such deposit, the petitioner is entitled to withdraw the entire amount; (h) there shall, however, be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.