This appeal challenges the compensation awarded for a motor accident injury. The court enhanced compensation to Rs. 2,05,000/- considering the claimant's 60% permanent disability and business impact, allowing the appeal partly.
The appeal was partly allowed; compensation enhanced to Rs. 2,05,000/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
DATE.13-07-2012.
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
C.M.A. No.2064 OF 2003
Between: Kolanu Sathyanarayana. --- Appellant/ Claimant. AND M. Venkanna and another. --Respondents/ Respondents.
The Court made the following:
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
C.M.A. No.2064 OF 2003
ORDER:
This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed by the appellant-claimant against the award dated 04-10-2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), Nalgonda in O.P. No.677 of 2001.
2. Heard Sri M. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/United India Insurance Company Limited.
3. Kolanu Sathyanarayana, aged about 23 years, the appellant herein, who was said to be a cloth merchant was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- p.m. On 04.03.2001, while he and others were proceedings in a car bearing No.ADB-4977 to Kothagudem, the driver of the said vehicle drove the car in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the stationed lorry bearing No.ADM-7069. As a result of which, the claimant received severe injuries was initially admitted in the Government Hospital, Khammam and thereafter he was shifted to Hyderabad for better treatment. The claimant received fracture to his left leg and was treated in Yashoda Hospitls, Hyderabad for 30 days, he spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- for his treatment.
4. On account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the said accident, he filed a claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. After making an enquiry into the claim, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
5. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded and contending that the same is not just and reasonable, he preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.
6. According to the appellant-claimant, he sustained permanent disability and he is not able to do the business. In proof of the injuries and the disability sustained by him, on his behalf, he got examined PW.5-Dr. A. Ananda Kumar, Orthopedic Surgeon, Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad and also filed Ex.A-5 disability certificate which shows that he sustained 60% disability, which is partial and permanent in nature. As per the evidence of PW.5, Orthopedic Surgeon, the claimant received the following injuries :
1. Comminuted fracture of left acetabulur (Part of the hip joint).
2. Posterior dislocation of left hip joint.
3. Sciatic nerve injury.
7. According to the doctor, the claimant underwent internal fixation of acetabuylur fracture on 08.03.2001 and was discharged on 15.03.2001. He was re-admitted on 25.04.2001 and replating operation was done on 26.04.2001 and was discharged on 29.04.2001. At the time of his discharge, the doctor opined that the claimant has painful subluxation of left hip with avascular neorosis of left femoral head, he has foot drop as a result of his sciatic nerve injury. Thus, the evidence of the doctor shows that the claimant is not able to walk without the help of a walker and he is not able to do any work. The discharge summary issued by the Yashoda Hospitals, Hyderabad is marked as Ex.A-4. The learned Tribunal granted a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As it could be seen from the award passed, the learned Tribunal did not appear to have considered the disability sustained by the claimant for the purpose of arriving at his loss of earnings.
8. Though the disability is assessed at 60% by the Medical Board and the same is confirmed by PW.5 at the relevant point of time, this Court has to arrive at the loss of earnings basing on the impact on the cloth business, the claimant was doing. Despite the fact that the claimant is not able to walk properly he can continue his business with some assistance and ultimately the loss caused to his business on account of his reduced efficiency has to be assessed. Though, it was stated that the claimant was earning Rs.5,000/- p.m. in his cloth business, it is not substantiated by any convincing evidence. However, the fact which cannot be denied is that the claimant at the time of the accident was aged 23 years and was doing cloth business. The percentage of the disability, in my view, which is likely to have impact on the cloth business of the claimant can be considered at 20% and his income for the said purpose can be considered at Rs.3,000/p.m.
9. The loss of earnings of the claimant has to be computed in the following manner : The monthly income of the claimant for the purpose of computing compensation is Rs.3,000/- p.m., his annual income would be Rs.36,000/-. Relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the claimant (23 years) as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla
Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and anothe r[1] is 18. Hence, loss of earnings of the claimant is Rs.36,000/- x 18 x 20/100 = Rs.1,29,600/-. Though the claimant filed Ex.A-6, bunch of medical bills, for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- the learned Tribunal considering the injuries and the treatment the claimant had undergone, granted an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses which seems to be reasonable and needs no interference in this Appeal. The amount of Rs.25,000/- granted towards pain and suffering also being reasonable does not require any interference in this Appeal. The learned Tribunal ought to have granted a reasonable sum towards
loss of amenities in the life and keeping in view of the condition of the claimant, I deem it appropriate to grant an amount of Rs.25,000/towards loss of amenities in the life. Since the loss of earnings have been computed in this Appeal basing on the disability sustained by the claimant an amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was granted by the learned Tribunal towards disability has to be deducted from the total sum. Thus, the total compensation of the claimant comes to Rs.2,04,600/and the same can be rounded of to Rs.2,05,000/-. The enhancement therefore will be Rs.1,05,000/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.
In the result, with the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the Appeal filed by the Appellant is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J. Date: 13-07- 2012. DSH
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
158
C.M.A. No.2064 OF 2003
July 13, 2012
DSH
[1]
2009 6 SCC 121
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal was just, reasonable, and adequate considering the permanent disability sustained by the claimant.
How to compute loss of earning and medical expenses based on medical evidence and impact on the claimant's cloth business.
Whether the award for disability and loss of amenities needs enhancement in the interest of justice.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarla Verma and others V. Delhi Transport Corporation and anotherApplied¶22
2009 6 SCC 121 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kolanu Sathyanarayana
M. Venkanna
United India Insurance Company Limited
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
