Sri Prabhudayal Dayal , Prabhu v. Md. Wajeez , Wajeed And Another

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T.AMARNATH GOUD M.A.C.M.A. No.2288 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant aggrieved by the Order and Decree dated 28.07.2008 passed in O.P.No.2587 of 2006 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, the Tribunal).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that on 23.08.2006 at about 21.15 hours, while the appellant was crossing the road near Kondapur, the driver of lorry bearing No.AP9U 6195 drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and hit the appellant. In the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body and his right hand and left hand fingers were amputated. He filed aforesaid OP against respondents Nos.1 and 2, owner and insurer of the lorry, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

3.

Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4.

After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to involvement of another motor vehicle, but not the aforesaid lorry and awarded total compensation of Rs.4,02,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, directing respondent No.1 to pay

the compensation, while exonerating the liability of respondent No.2. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement of the same.

5.

Smt.

Annapurna, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal erred in exonerating the liability of respondent No.2 on the ground that the accident occurred due to involvement of another motor vehicle, but not the aforesaid lorry. She further submitted that since the appellant is a Marble Stone Cutter, the Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month instead of Rs.3,000/- per month. She further submitted that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq V. Divisional Manager, United India Ins. Co.1, the appellant is entitled to 50% increment towards future prospects. She further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with a case of amputation of right leg, in Sanjay Kumar V. Ashok Kumar2 granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering. Basing on the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks to enhance the compensation amount.

6.

Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2, submitted that the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order and sought to dismiss the appeal. 1 AIR 2014 SC 1052 2 2014 ACJ 653

7.

Though the vehicle number mentioned by the complainant, a Police Constable, in the compliant as AP9U 6795, but on verification, it came to light that the said vehicle is an auto, which is a light motor vehicle and that the accident took place with lorry bearing No.AP9U 6195 and the same tallies with the name of the owner i.e., respondent No.1. The said aspect is clarified by the documents filed before this Court in MACMA.MP.No.4000 of 2010. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in exonerating the liability of respondent No.2 is set aside.

8.

With regard to disability, the appellant filed Ex.A.6, disability certificate, which shows the disability of the appellant at 70%. As Ex.A.6 was issued by the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, I am inclined to consider the disability of the appellant at 70%. With regard to income of the appellant, in the light of Ex.A.7 and evidence of P.W.2, I am inclined to fix the income of the appellant at Rs.4,500/- per month.

9.

While dealing with cases of amputation of right leg, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Syed Sadiq's case (supra), granted 50% increment in future prospect of income and in Sanjay Kumar's case (supra), granted an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering. In the present case, as the right hand and left hand fingers of the appellant were amputated, he is entitled for the said benefits. As the appellant was aged about 21 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier is '18'. Hence, the compensation under the head 'loss of future earnings'

comes to Rs.10,20,600/- {Rs.6,750/- (Rs.4,500/- + 50%) X 12 X 18 X 70%}. Due to the amputation of right hand, the appellant might have lost earnings for a period of at least three months. Hence, an amount of Rs.13,500/- (Rs.4,500/- X 3 months) is granted towards loss of earnings. In the facts of the present case, the amount of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The other amounts granted by the Tribunal shall remain unchanged. The total compensation would be as follows: Sl.No.

Name of Head Awarded by Tribunal Awarded by this Court 01.

Grievous injury Rs.30,000/- Rs.30,000/- 02.

Loss of future earnings Rs.3,42,000/- Rs.10,20,600/- 03.

Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 04.

Loss of amenities of life Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- 05.

Nutritious food, transport and assistance Rs.5,000/- Rs.10,000/- 06.

General medical expenditure Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- 07.

Loss of earnings --- Rs.13,500/- TOTAL Rs.4,02,000/- Rs.10,99,100/- 10.

In the result, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.4,02,000/- to Rs.10,99,100/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. As the appellant claimed only Rs.10,00,000/-, he is directed to deposit deficit Court fee before the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.

_________________________ T.AMARNATH GOUD, J Date: 01.08.2019 TJMR