Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, J.
Nalamaru Venkata Reddy – Petitioner
Versus
N. Chandra Mohan N.Chandra Mohan Reddy Others – Respondents
M.A.C.M.A.No.547 of 2016
Decided On : 28-10-2022
MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT - COMPENSATION - QUANTUM - INJURIES SUSTAINED BY THE CLAIMANT - ASSESSMENT - PRINCIPLES - MODIFICATION OF AWARD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/claimant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident and filed a claim petition seeking compensation. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. The appellant challenged the award, contending that the compensation was inadequate.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the appellant at Rs.15,000/- per month, though Ex.A-12 salary certificate proved that his salary was Rs.35,150/- per month at the time of accident. The court also held that the Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of future earnings, inspite of Ex.A-4 permanent disability certificate, which discloses the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 35%.
Issues: 1. Whether the Tribunal erred in fixing the income of the appellant at Rs.15,000/- per month, though Ex.A-12 salary certificate proved that his salary was Rs.35,150/- per month at the time of accident? 2. Whether the Tribunal erred in not awarding loss of future earnings, inspite of Ex.A-4 permanent disability certificate, which discloses the permanent disability suffered by the claimant as 35%.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, 2011 (1) SCJ 725, which held that the assessment of compensation in a case of personal injuries should be based on the following heads: (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage). (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity).
Final Decision: The court modified the award passed by the Tribunal and held that the appellant is entitled to Rs.70,300/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment, instead of Rs.30,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.4,30,000 + 70,300 = Rs.5,00,300/-, with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation.
JUDGMENT :
This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/claimant, challenging the award dated 25.12.2014 passed in M.V.O.P.No.278/2011 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.4,60,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties in the lower Court.
3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-on account of the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.11.2010.
4. The facts show that the claimant was working as a driver in Kuwait, earning salary of Rs.22,500/-per month and he returned to India on 08.10.2010. The claimant purchased ticket to go to Kuwait and left from his village on 31.10.2010 at about 10.00 p.m. to go to Chennai Air Port and he was proceeding in Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 04 TV 0155. The Sumo vehicle on the way to Chennai reached near Settygunta village at about 00.45 hours on the intervening night of 31.10.2010/01.11.2010. Driver of Tata Sumo dashed a stationed lorry bearing No.AP 02X 9943 on its rear right side and caused accident due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. The claimant sustained fracture injuries on his left leg thigh, and he was shifted to S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi and from there to Apollo Hospital, Chenni, and he underwent three operations and steel plated rods were inserted, skin drafting was also done and he spent an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-towards treatment and transport expenses. The left leg thigh of claimant was totally damaged upto lower limb. The claimant suffered permanent disability and lost his visa period, resulted in loss of Rs.1,20,000/-.
5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent, owner of the Tata Sumo vehicle filed counter, opposing the petition, submitted that there was no rash and negligence on the part of 1st respondent in causing the said accident. In fact, at the time of accident, the 1st respondent was driving the vehicle in a moderate speed by observing all traffic rules and regulations. The lorry bearing No. AP 02X 9943 was stationed on the road without proper indicative lights, and without any signals and driver of lorry had not taken any precautions to warn the coming vehicles, as such, the accident was occurred due to negligence on the part of driver of lorry. The 1st respondent has insured his vehicle with 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, and the policy was in force on the date of accident. The 1st respondent has not violated any terms and conditions of the policy.
6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the claimant, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle, nature of injuries, medical expenditure and liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident took place due to rash and negligent parking of lorry without taking any precautions, which is owned by the 3rd respondent. The driver of Sumo did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident.
7. The 4th respondent/Insurance Company of stationed lorry filed counter, opposing the petition, submitted that respondents No.3 and 4 are not necessary parties to the claim petition. The accident took place solely due to the rash and negligent driving of Tata Sumo driver. The claimant did not sustain any permanent disability. The 3rd respondent/owner of lorry remained exparate.
8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
The assessment of compensation in a case of personal injuries should be based on the following heads:
(i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing foo....
The loss of earning capacity of a claimant in a motor vehicle accident should be computed on the basis of loss of functional disability, and not on the basis of permanent disability.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of just compensation for personal injuries sustained in a motor accident, considering medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of am....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the assessment of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity in compensation cases under the Motor Vehicles Act. The court applied the princ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
