Partly allowed

K. Lakshmi Rajyam v. Ramisetty Subramanyam

Telangana HC24 Aug 2010CMA/2349/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a compensation appeal in part, modifying an award by enhancing the amount for pain and suffering and medical expenses, and directing interest on the additional sum due to verified bills and grievous injuries sustained by a teacher.

What did the court decide?

Award modified by enhancing compensation by Rs.32,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition.

K. Lakshmi Rajyam Vs Ramisetty Subramanyam — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN

¶3

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD

¶4

C.M.A. No.2349 of 2001

¶5

Between:

¶6

K. Lakshmi Rajyam .. Appellant AND

¶7

Ramisetty Subramanyam and another .. Respondents

¶8

JUDGMENT:

¶9

This appeal is directed against the award, dated 10-05-2001 in M.V.O.P. No.68 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

¶10

The factual background for the appeal is that the petitioner, a secondary grade teacher, aged about 39 years by then, was going from her house to her school, when Jeep No. AP 04T 1987 came opposite her in high speed, being driven rashly and negligently, and dashed against her near Jayasyam theatre road. The petitioner sustained fracture of both bones of left leg apart from other injuries all over the body, was shifted to Ruia hospital, Tirupati, was later shifted to C.M.C. hospital, Vellore and was operated with insertion of steel rod and steel plates in her leg. She was disabled from attending to her duty for seven months by applying for extraordinary leave on loss of pay and was left with permanent disability in the leg. Traffic police, Tirupati filed C.C.

¶11

No.292 of 1998 in Crime No.87 of 1998 against the driver of the jeep and consequently, she claimed a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the jeep.

¶12

While the owner remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim contending that there was no negligence on the part of the jeep driver and all other allegations in the petition were denied. The compensation claimed by her was stated to be excessive and the claim petition was desired to be dismissed.

¶13

The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 during the enquiry, while the insurer did not produce any evidence on its behalf.

¶14

The Tribunal rendered the impugned judgment firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep, to come to which conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of the claimant as P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 chargesheet. The Tribunal while assessing the compensation, referred to the oral and documentary evidence for the claimant in detail and opined that no reliance can be placed on the bills for transportation charges, which can be manipulated and hence, restricted the transportation charges that can be reimbursed to Rs.8,000/-. It considered just to award Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering and calculated loss of future earnings on the basis of 35% of the enhanced salary of the petitioner on her regularization, multiplied by 13.194 relevant to her age of 39 years. The Tribunal found no reason to take into account any delay in regularization of the petitioner’s services due to the accident and thus, granted a total compensation of Rs.1,12,622/- by adding Rs.3,500/- towards loss

¶15

of past earnings and Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Though the claimant filed medical bills to a tune of Rs.50,813-79 ps., the Tribunal restricted such expenses with reference to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum and proportionate costs on the compensation awarded.

¶16

The claimant challenges the said award firstly on the ground of not granting transportation charges of Rs.26,000/- in full as proved by Ex.A.12 and secondly on the ground of granting a meagre sum of Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering apart from unjustly disentitling the claimant to the medical expenses in full, proved by Ex.A.11. The claimant, therefore, desired that the entire compensation be awarded as claimed.

¶17

Heard Sri P. Govind Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A.V.K.S. Prasad, learned standing counsel for the insurer and none appeared for the 1^st respondent owner.

¶18

In so far as the finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being with the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, the same is not under challenge by any party and has become final. The subsisting insurance of the vehicle with the insurer by the time of the accident or ownership of the vehicle with the 1^st respondent to the claim are also not in dispute and therefore, their joint and several liability to justly and adequately compensate the claimant is not in doubt.

¶19

The only question that remains for consideration is the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled.

¶20

In so far as the compensation to which the claimant may be entitled in respect of the injuries and their consequences is concerned, the Tribunal has been liberal in calculating such loss at 35% of the earnings of the petitioner per month and multiplying the

¶21

same by 12 months to arrive at the annual loss and further multiplying with reference to 13.194 multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner, though 35% of the disability in respect of one limb would not have, in any manner, resulted in 35% disability in future earnings, more so in the light of the occupation of the petitioner as a teacher. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.3,500/- towards loss of past earnings on the same basis and as such grant was not challenged by the insurer, the same, of course, need not be disturbed.

¶22

Similarly, the reasoning of the Tribunal with reference to the claims of the maidservant and transport, cannot be considered to be perverse, as such oral or documentary evidence is capable of being manipulated by the petitioner. In the absence of examination of anybody connected with Ex.A.12 bills concerning transport charges, the estimate by the Tribunal at Rs.8,000/- on the strength of its experience and wisdom needs no interference herein.

¶23

However, when it comes to pain and suffering, the injuries suffered involved two fractures/two grievous injuries apart from other simple injuries and the petitioner had to undergo the trauma of a major surgery for insertion of a steel rod and steel plates in the leg as the consequence of the accident. Her claim that she was disabled from attending duty for about seven months by applying for extraordinary leave on loss of pay was not specifically contradicted and under the circumstances, the compensation for pain and suffering would have been on higher scale and at a minimum of Rs.10,000/- for the two grievous injuries.

¶24

Apart from the same, the Tribunal limited the medical expenses to Rs.15,000/- with reference to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. But it did not calculate the other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, which could have been either adopted

¶25

as a whole or not, but not in parts. The petition is also under Section 166 and not under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, whatever medical expenses were proved should have been reimbursed to the claimant. A scrutiny of medical bills Ex.A.11 shows that out of Rs.50,813.79 ps., Rs.10,000/- happened to be advances paid by the petitioner, which ought to have been adjusted in the final bills and therefore, the actual expenses incurred can be considered to be Rs.40,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- was already awarded.

¶26

Though the claimant could have incurred other incidental expenses also and though the damages under other heads can be criticized as conservative, the grant of heavier compensation than to which the claimant is entitled towards loss of future earnings will make it unnecessary to grant any further enhancement under any other heads than Rs.25,000/- towards the medical expenses and Rs.7,000/- towards pain and suffering.

¶27

Such enhanced sum of Rs.32,000/- may carry interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization keeping in view the length of time for which the insurer has to pay such interest from 1999 up to the date of payment. Proportionate costs, of course, shall follow the event.

¶28

Accordingly, the award, dated 10-05-2001 in M.V.O.P. No.68 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-IV Additional District Judge, Tirupati is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs thereon in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal under the impugned award. No further directions need be given about the disbursement of the

¶29

compensation at this distance of time. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs.

¶30

_____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J

¶31

Date: 24-08-2010

¶32

Svv

K. Lakshmi Rajyam v. Ramisetty Subramanyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Lakshmi Rajyam v. Ramisetty Subramanyam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pentapati Venkataswamy, Vs Pulapa Radhakrishna Murthy

Bandyala Anthaiah , Anthy Reddy Vs P. Srinivas

Sadu Badrappa Vs M.Ramesh

Nagelli Anjamma, Vs Tangutoori Venkati

Chalumuri Ravi, being minor rep., by his father and guardian Vs Allada Sreerama Murthy

Tippalla Bhudevamma, Vs Shaik Jani Miya