HONOURABLE
Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO
M.A.C.M.A.No.2486
OF 2007
JUDGMENT:
The injured-claimant filed this appeal against both
the respondents of the claim
petition(Owner and Insurer of the crime lorry bearing No.AP 28 W 3999, having
been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal–cum–Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in O.P.No.2993 of
2005 dated 22.03.2007, awarding compensation of Rs.4,24,000/-(Rupees four lakh
twenty four thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.7,50,000/-(Rupees seven
lakh fifty rupees only), for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the
claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).
2.
Heard Sri B.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Smt. Bhaskara
Lakshmi, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent-the
National Insurance Company Limited and the 1st respondent-owner of
the crime vehicle though contested before the tribunal did not choose to appear
in this appeal. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are
referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the
appeal.
3. The
contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as during course of hearing in
nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of
evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal awarded compensation
unjust and utterly low and allow the appeal by enhancing the compensation as
prayed for.
4. Whereas,
it is the contention of the 2nd respondent-Insurer that for this
Court while sitting in this appeal there is nothing to interfere with the
reasoned judgment of the Tribunal. Hence, to dismiss the appeal.
5).Now
the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:
1. Whether the compensation awarded by
the Tribunal is not just and utterly low and requires interference by this
Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement
to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?
2. To what result?
POINT-1:
6. The
fact that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the
driver of the crime lorry bearing No. AP 28 W 3999 of 1st respondent
in which the injured was working as a cleaner—cum-labourer which was at about
1.30 A.M. after midnight of 24.10.05 which dashed against the road side
stationed lorry bearing No.AEK 1122 from behind not in dispute but for the
purpose of the appeal but nothing to say any contributory negligence of
opposite vehicle from Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 charge sheet also against the
driver of the crime lorry of 1st respondent. There is also no dispute on the factum of injured
at the time of accident working as a cleaner –cum-labourer in the crime lorry
under 1st respondent-owner and Ex.B.1 policy covers risk.
7. Now
coming to the claim since filed under Section 166 of the Act from the above
under Section 167 of the MV Act instead of under the Workmens Compensation Act
(for short, ‘the WC Act’) before the Tribunal as the quantum to be confined so
far as the Insurer concerned under the WC Act and the rest to be recovered from
the owner to the claimant concerned, it is not in dispute the Ex.B.1 policy
covers comprehensive and not the risk covered only for the W.C.Act but by
additional premium and thereby there is nothing restricting the liability of
the Insurer to indemnify the claimant as cleaner-cum-labourer to the W.C.Act
claim as right concluded by the Tribunal.
8. Now
coming to the quantum of compensation from amputation of the left leg by the
knee joint, the Medical Board certifies 60% permanent disability. P.w.2-Doctor deposed that claimant can attend
desk work or the like though he cannot attend normal hard labour. Having considered all these aspects, the
tribunal assessed the monetary loss as well as the loss of amenities from the
amputation of left leg above knee at 60% disability by scanning photos and for
this Court while sitting in appeal merely because some other view is also
possible, there is nothing to interfere.
From this, the Tribunal taken the earnings of the injured as
cleaner-cum-labourer at Rs.3,000/- per annum.
As the 1st respondent-owner, having filed counter, did not
even speak what was the salary or wages he was paying. As per the guideline in the expression of apex Court
in Latha Wadhwa vs. State of Bihar[1]
that even there is no proof of income and earnings, it can be reasonably
estimated at Rs.3,000/- p.m. for any non-earning member and even for housewife
as domestic contribution. As the accident was taken place in
the early hours of 25.10.2005 which is more than 4 years after the said
expression, the earnings of the claimant can be taken at minimum of Rs.3,400/-
p.m. if that is not the case for 60% disability which comes to Rs.2040/-x12x18
as per Sarla
Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[2] for a person below the 20 years and above 16 years
(as the injured is 19 years) that comes to Rs.4,40,640/-, for pain and
sufferance from the amputation of the left leg an amount of Rs.20,000/- as
awarded by the Tribunal in para-15, for medical expenses awarded by the Tribunal Rs.25,000/-; and for transport charges,
attendant charges and extra nourishment an amount of Rs.5,000/-; and for an
artificial limb, an amount of Rs.20,000/- which comes to Rs.5,10,640/- rounded
to Rs.5,11,000/-.
Coming to the rate of interest, the interest at 6% per annum awarded by the
Tribunal is low concerned, from the settled proposition of law in TN
Transport Corporation v. Raja Priya[3]
and Sarla Verma’s case (cited
supra) and from the latest expression of the Apex Court in Rajesh’s
case (cited supra), interest therein awarded is at 7½% per
annum, hence, the rate of interest is modified by enhancing from 6% per annum
to 7½%p.a. Accordingly, Point-1 for consideration
is answered.
POINT -2:
9. In the result, the appeal is
partly allowed by modifying the Award of the Tribunal on quantum of
compensation by enhancing the same from Rs.4,24,400/- to Rs.5,11,000/-(Rupees five
lakh eleven thousand only) with interest at 7½% per annum from date of the
claim petition till realization/deposit with notice. The Respondents, who are
liable to pay the compensation, are directed to deposit within one month said
amount with interest from the date of petition, failing which the claimant can
execute and recover. On such deposit or
execution and recovery, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same. There
is no order as to costs in the appeal.
________________________
Dr. B. SIVA
SANKARA RĀO, J
Date:
18.02-2014
VVR
