AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—1. Appellants are the claimants, being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the judgment and award dated 23.09.2011 made in MVC Nos. 242/2010 and 244/2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Yadgiri (hereinafter referred to as ''the Tribunal'' for short) have filed these appeals seeking for enhancement of compensation.
Since the common judgment and award passed by the Tribunal are challenged in these two appeals, they are clubbed together and disposed of by this common judgment.
The appellants herein filed the claim petitions before the Tribunal contending that, on 27.07.2010 at about 9.30 a.m., they were standing by the side of the road near Gunjanoor Cross on Gurmitkal-Yadgiri Main Road. At that time, an Innova Car bearing registration No. AP-09/BX-1899 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came from Gurmitkal side and dashed against the claimants. Due to that, the claimants sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, they were shifted to District Government Hospital, Raichur. After first aid, they took treatment in the private hospitals at Raichur and Mahaboobnagar. The claimant in MVC No. 242/2010 was working as LIC agent and also working as agricultural coolie and earning Rs. 17,000/- p.m. The claimant in MVC No. 244/2010 was working as agricultural coolie and earning Rs. 10,000/- p.m. In view of the injuries sustained and fracture undergone, they cannot do the agricultural work. Hence, sought for compensation of Rs. 14,50,000/- each.
In pursuance of the notice issued by the Tribunal, though respondent No. 1 - owner of the vehicle was served with notice, he remained unrepresented.
Respondent No. 2 - insurance company filed the written statement denying the entire averments made in the claim petition and also contended that due to the negligence on the part of the claimants, as they were standing in the middle of the road without observing the movement of vehicles, the accident had occurred and sought for dismissal of the claim petition.
On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.
The claimants in order to prove their case, the claimant in MVC No. 242/2010 got examined himself as P.W. 1 and the claimant in MVC No. 244/2010 got examined himself as P.W. 2 and the doctor who treated them was examined as P.W. 3 and got marked the documents as Exs. P1 to P62. On behalf of the respondents, none of the witnesses have been examined. However, with the consent of the parties, the insurance policy, RC and DL were marked as Exs. R1 to R3.
The Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration the police records i.e., spot panchanama and MVI report, held that due to the negligence on the part of the driver of Innova Car, the accident had occurred. Hence, the claimants are entitled for compensation.
With regard to the quantum of compensation in MVC No. 242/2010 is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained cut lacerated wound of 3 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm present over the lower third of right leg on anterior aspect, abrasion over the upper third of right leg, cut lacerated wound over forehead on the left side measuring 1 cm x 1 cm and comminuted fracture of lower third of both bones of right leg. Though the doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 22.5% to the whole body, since the disability certificate has not been issued by the treated doctor, the Tribunal has considered the disability only to an extent of 10%. Though the claimant claimed that he was working as LIC agent and earning more than Rs. 17,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. Hence, the Tribunal taking into consideration the income of claimant as Rs. 3,000/- p.m., considering the disability to an extent of 10% and applying the multiplier of 15 has awarded a sum of Rs. 54,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period and Rs. 10,000/- loss of amenities. In all, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,19,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.
With regard to the quantum of compensation in MVC No. 244/2010 is concerned, in the accident, the claimant has sustained i) fracture of anterior ramus, fracture of pubic bone, ii) fracture of lateral condyle of femur and iii) fracture of upper third of fibula and mid shaft of tibia. The doctor has assessed the disability to an extent of 35% to the whole body. Though the claimant claimed that he was earning a sum of Rs. 10,000/- p.m., no document has been produced to substantiate the same. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the claimant as Rs. 3,000/- p.m., considering the disability to an extent of 15% and applying the multiplier of 16 since he was aged about 34 years, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 87,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs. 40,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 53,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs. 5,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period. In all, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 6% p.a..
Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants in both the claim petitions have preferred these two appeals, seeking for enhancement of compensation.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the advocates appearing for the parties and perused the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties.
The record clearly discloses that the appellants in both the appeals have sustained injuries in the road traffic accident that occurred on 27.07.2010 due to the actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the Innova Car. The finding of the Tribunal with regard to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the car has become final. The dispute in these appeals is only with regard to the quantum of compensation.
MFA No. 30676/2012 (MVC No. 244/2010):
The wound certificate - Ex. P62 clearly discloses that apart from the three fractures referred to above, the appellant has sustained abrasion over the forehead, multiple cut and lacerated wound over the right knee, anterior aspect and over the proximal aspect of right leg and cut lacerated wound over the forehead and other parts of the body. He has undergone surgery in the hospital, Nailing has been done. He was an inpatient for a period of 20 days. In view of the fracture of anterior ramus and fracture of pubic bone, fracture of lateral condyle of femur and also the fracture of upper third of fibula and mid shaft of tibia, he cannot do the work as agricultural coolie. Though the doctor has assessed the permanent disability to an extent of 35%, the disability of 15% taken by the Tribunal is on the lower side. The doctor has assessed disability to an extent of 60% to 70% to the particular limb. 1/3rd of that ought to have been taken by the Tribunal. Taking the disability to an extent of 20%, the compensation ought to have been awarded. The income of Rs. 3,000/- p.m. taken by the Tribunal is also on the lower side. The accident had occurred in the year 2010. Usually, an agricultural coolie would get Rs. 175/- per day at the relevant point of time. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the appellant as Rs. 5,500/- p.m., considering the disability to an extent of 20% and applying the multiplier of 16, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,11,200/- towards loss of future earnings as against Rs. 87,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 40,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 53,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is in accordance with law. Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards conveyance charges is on the lower side. The appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges. Further, the appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in addition to Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, since he has to lead his remaining life with 20% disability. Further, he is entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of income during laid up period in addition to Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,64,200/- as against Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,64,200/- which is rounded off to Rs. 1,64,000/- (Rs. 3,64,200/- less Rs. 2,00,000/-).
MFA No. 30677/2012 (MVC No. 242/2010):
In the accident, the appellant has sustained the fracture of both the bones of right leg and other injuries to the body. He took treatment in the District Government Hospital, Raichur and also in the Surya Hospital, Mahaboobnagar. The doctor, who issued the disability certificate has assessed the disability to an extent of 22.5% on the basis that there is wasting of right leg muscles and restricted movement of right ankle joint. Since the disability certificate was not issued by the treated doctor, the Tribunal has taken the disability to an extent of 10%. Though the claimant claimed that he was LIC agent and produced the necessary documents, the Tribunal has disbelieved the same and taken the income of Rs. 3,000/- p.m., which is on the lower side. The accident had occurred in the year 2010. Even an agricultural coolie would earn Rs. 5,000/- p.m. at the relevant point of time. Hence, taking into consideration the income of the appellant at Rs. 5,500/- p.m., considering the disability to an extent of 10% and applying the multiplier of 15, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 99,000/- towards loss of future earnings as against Rs. 54,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs. 30,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is in accordance with law. Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards conveyance charges is on the lower side. The appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards conveyance charges. Further, the appellant is entitled to another sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of amenities in addition to Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, since he has to carry out disability through out his remaining life. Further, he is entitled to another sum of Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of income during the laid up period in addition to Rs. 5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. In all, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/- as against Rs. 1,19,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Thereby, the appellant is entitled to the enhanced compensation of Rs. 87,000/- (Rs. 2,06,000/- less Rs. 1,19,000/-).
Accordingly, I pass the following;
ORDER
Both the appeals are allowed in part. The judgment and awards dated 23.09.2011 passed in MVC Nos. 242/2010 and 244/2010 by the M.A.C.T-II, Yadgiri are modified. The appellant in MFA No. 30676/2012 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 1,64,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. and the appellant in MFA No. 30677/2012 is entitled for enhanced compensation of Rs. 87,000/- with interest at 6% p.a.