Sri Prabhakara M Vs Smt. R Jayanthi

THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., NO.8-1-210, P.H.ROAD, OPPOSITE DISTRICT COURT, CHITTOR CITY & DISTRICT, ANDRAPRADESH, PIN CODE-517 001.

¶15

SRI P.BABU S/O PERUMAL, MAJOR IN AGE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶17

R/AT NO.11-36, AZAGU NAGAR, T.N.H.B. COLONY, TRICHY ROAD, NAMKKAL CITY & DISTRICT, TAMILNADU, PIN CODE-637 110.

¶18

THE BRANCH MANAGER ROYAL SUNDARAM ALLIANCE INSURANCE CO. LTD., NO.8/H-1, MANAGALAM BUILDINGS, 4 ROADS, SALEM CITY & DISTRICT, TAMILNADU-636 009.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. O. MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R4; R3- SERVED, UNREPRESENTED; R1- SERVICE OF NOTICE DISPENSED WITH, V/O. DATED 27.06.2017)

¶21

THIS MFA FILED U/S 173(1) OF MV ACT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD DATED 09.01.2013 PASSED IN MVC NO.4728/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE XX ADDITIONAL SMALL CAUSE JUDGE & XVIII ACMM, MACT, BANGALORE, PARTLY ALLOWING THE CLAIM PETITION FOR COMPENSATION AND SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF COMPENSATION.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

¶24

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶25

Disputing the validity of the order that is rendered by the

¶26

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru in MVC No.4728/2010 dated 9.1.2013, the present appeal is filed. This is a claimant’s appeal.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶29

Heard Smt.Suguna R. Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.O.Mahesh learned counsel who represented respondents No.2 and 4.

¶30

On the ground that he sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident that occurred on 17.03.2010 and became permanently and completely disabled, the appellant filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs.18,00,000/- in total. The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,46,140/- as compensation. Projecting that the said sum is grossly low, the present appeal is filed.

¶31

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant sustained multiple grievous injuries and took treatment as inpatient for considerable period. PW3 assessed the disability in respect of whole body as 15%. The appellant as an agriculturist and on transport business was earning huge sum by the date of accident. The fact that the appellant was in possession of landed property was established through Ex.P20. The appellant also filed Exs.P21 to 23 Income Tax returns to establish his earnings. However, the Tribunal without considering the documentary as well as the oral evidence

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶33

produced, awarded very meagre sum as compensation. Learned counsel stated that no amount whatsoever is granted under the head loss of future earnings, though the disability in respect of whole body is 15%. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount that is awarded as compensation under all other heads is also grossly low. Learned counsel thereby sought for enhancement of compensation.

¶34

The submission that was made by learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 4 on the other hand is that the appellant continued his occupation both as agriculturist and businessman even after occurrence of the accident and thus, there is no loss of earnings. Learned counsel further stated that the Tribunal considering the totality of evidence, awarded justifiable sum as compensation and therefore the award needs no interference.

¶35

The Tribunal through the impugned order awarded a sum of Rs.3,46,140/- as compensation divided under following heads:

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶37

Sl.	Heads of	Amount in
No	compensation	Rs.
1	Loss of income during laid up period	5,040/-
2	Pain and suffering	90,000/-
3	Transportation charges	15,000/-
4	Special food and nutrition etc.,	1,800/-
5.	Loss of amenities of life, frustration, disappointment inconvenience etc.,	40,000/-
6	Medical expenses	1,62,500/-
7	Attendant charges	1,800/-
8	Future Medical Expenses	30,000/-
	Total	Rs.3,46,140/-

¶38

It is not in dispute that the appellant sustained

¶39

fracture of shaft of right femur and fracture of shaft of left humerus. The evidence of PW3 is that the appellant has 15% disability in respect of his left upper limb, 30% disability in respect of his right lower limb and 15% disability in respect of whole body. Thus, it is clear that, the appellant is left with permanent physical disability of 15% in respect of whole body.

¶40

6 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶42

Having considered the documentary as well as the oral evidence produced, the Tribunal at page 12 of the impugned order made an observation that the version of the appellant that he is earning Rs.1,50,000/- per annum by doing agriculture and transport business, cannot be regarded as something speculative or unusual. Even if it is taken into consideration that the appellant continued his agricultural operations and transport business even after the date of accident, having regard to the disability with which he is left with, this Court is of the view that he may not in a position to conduct his occupation with same vigor and energy as he was doing prior to the date of accident. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the appellant is certainly entitled for compensation under the head loss of future earnings on account of permanent physical disability to whole body. Thus, taking the age of the appellant as 49 years by the date of accident as established by him through the documents produced, ‘13’ is the multiplier which is applicable as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarala Verma and Others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another reported in 2009 SAR (Civ) 592.

¶43

7 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶45

The annual income of the appellant is Rs.1,50,000/-

¶46

The permanent physical disability in respect of whole body is 15%. Therefore, the loss of future earnings on account of

¶47

permanent physical disability is as under:

¶48

Description	Amount Rs.
Income per Annum	1,50,00-00
Applying the appropriate multiplier'13'(1,50,000x13)	19,50,000-00
Loss of future earnings, permanent physical disability in respect of whole body being 15%	02,92,500-00

¶49

Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,92,500/-, towards loss of future earnings.

¶50

Coming to the sum that is awarded as compensation under all other heads, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,040/- towards loss of income during laid up period. Having considered the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant, this Court is of the view that the appellant would have taken bed rest atleast for a period of four months. The amount that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal towards food and nutrition i.e., Rs.1,800/- and attendant charges i.e. Rs.1,800/- is also grossly low. Therefore, under the

¶51

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6482 MFA No. 3565 of 2013

¶52

heads loss of income during laid up period, towards food and nutrition and also towards attendant charges, this Court is of the view that the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25,000/more globally.

¶53

Thus, the total compensation which the appellant is entitled to in addition to the sum that is awarded as compensation by the Tribunal is Rs.3,17,500/- (Rs.2,92,500/+ Rs.25,000/-).

¶54

Therefore, the appeal is disposed of with

¶55

the following

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The appeal is allowed in part.

¶58

(ii) The compensation that is granted by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru, through orders in MVC No.4728/2010 dated 09.01.2013 is enhanced by Rs.3,17,500/-.

¶59