N. Manik Reddy vs Satyanarayan Soni And Ors

P. Sam Koshy, J

The present is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, filed by the appellant-claimant seeking for enhancement of the compensation awarded.

Challenge in the present appeal is to the award dated 25.1.2012 passed by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, in Claim Case No. 136/2011.

Vide the impugned award, the learned Tribunal, in an injury case, under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,08,650/- in favour of the appellant-claimant with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim application.

Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the amount of compensation awarded is too meagre an amount considering the income of the claimant so also the injuries sustained. He further submits that as a consequence of the injuries sustained by the claimant he has been totally bedridden and that because of the injury on his spinal cord he is not able to sit or stand for a long period and therefore he is totally confined to bed. He further submits that the income tax returns for the previous years have been produced before the Tribunal which show that the income of the claimant for the assessment year 2005-06 was more than Rs.16,00,000/-. Likewise, the income tax returns of the previous assessment years show the income of the claimant to be much more than his income of the assessment year 2005-06 and therefore the Tribunal should have been taken his income as also his total loss of earning capacity and quantified the compensation suitably. He further submits that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case nor has the Tribunal given due weightage to the injuries caused to the claimant though the Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the award has categorically accepted the fact that the claimant had suffered grievous injuries.

Learned counsel for respondent no.3-insurance company however opposing the appeal submits that it is a case where the Tribunal has awarded the compensation based on the evidence which have come on record and as such there is no scope of further enhancement. He further submits that because the disability certificate was not issued from a competent medical board nor has it been established by a doctor from the medical board, it cannot be presumed that the claimant has suffered major disability. He thus prayed for the rejection of the appeal.

Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record what is reflected is that, the appellant in the instant case has produced a medical certificate issued from the Government of Andhra Pradesh, Area Hospital, Vikarabad, District Rangareddy. The said certificate was exhibited before the Tribunal as Exhibit P-119 and the same was also proved by AW-2 Dr. D. Anant Reddy, a Civil Surgeon of the said Hospital. From the said Exhibit P-119 and also from the deposition of AW- 2, it clearly reflects that the claimant on account of the said accident had received fracture on his right leg which had to be operated upon and steel plate and rod had to be inserted for his treatment. Likewise, there was also grievous injuries on the spinal cord of the claimant where there was a huge gap developed on account of which he is not in a position to sit or stand for long.

Given the said evidence of the claimant and the doctor, we further proceed to consider the income tax returns of the claimant. Exhibits P-124, P-125 and P-126 are the income tax returns for the years 2004-05, 2003- 04 and 2005-06. The gross income for these three assessment years is Rs. 41,51,151, Rs. 36,40,829/- and Rs. 16,53,920/-. Further, from the evidence of the claimant what also reflects is that, the claimant was an A-3 Class Government Contractor. In addition, he had also other business, like, he had 40% shares in Balaji Constructions, Nellore.

Given the aforesaid evidence which have come on record, this Court has no hesitation in reaching to the conclusion that the monthly income of the claimant would had been somewhere around Rs.1,00,000/- though the income tax return show the income to much more.

So far as the disability part is concerned, true it is that the doctors in the instant case have not assigned any specific percentage of permanent disability caused to the claimant. However, from the deposition of the doctor so also from the findings of the Tribunal in paragraph 10 it clearly reflects that the claimant has suffered grievous injuries and that he has suffered complications on account of these injuries on his spinal cord to the extent that he is not able to sit or stand for long and hence he is totally bedridden. In the given factual matrix of the case, this Court assesses the total functional disability of the claimant at 50%.

Taking Rs.1,00,000/- as the monthly income of the claimant, the yearly income comes to Rs.12,00,000/- of which if 50% is assessed as loss of earning capacity, the amount would come to Rs.6,00,000/- which if multiplied applying the multiplier of 11 considering the age of the claimant, the amount towards the loss of earning capacity would come to Rs.66,00,000/-. In addition, the claimant shall also be entitled for other misc. compensation as assessed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs.75,650/-. Thus, making the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.66,75,650/- instead of Rs.1,08,650/- which the Tribunal has awarded.

The impugned award stands accordingly modified and enhanced from Rs.1,08,650 to Rs.66,75,650/- which the appellant-claimant shall be entitled to receive from respondent no.3-insurance company. The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry interest at the same rate as has been fixed by the learned Tribunal.

The appeal thus stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.