Partly allowed

Kumari Yasmin v. Mr.K. Surender Reddy

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012CMA/3965/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court, Andhra Pradesh enhanced the compensation awarded to a minor claimant amputated below the knee in a motor vehicle accident. The Court held the Tribunal erred not applying the multiplier method and adjusted heads for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and loss of marriage prospects.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced by Rs. 66,250 to a total of Rs. 1,81,250; appeal partly allowed.

Kumari Yasmin Vs Mr.K. Surender Reddy — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶5

CMA.NO. 3965 OF 2003

¶6

Between: Kumari Yasmin … Appellant V/s. K.Surender Reddy & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri K. Raji Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Sri G.Ramchandra Reddy The Court made the following : (Judgment follows next page)

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA R4AO

¶8

CMA.NO. 3965 OF 2003

¶9

JUDGMENT :

¶10

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting

¶11

parties.

¶12

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the injured-

¶13

claimant seeking enhancement of compensation.

¶14

3. The appellant, Kumari Yasmeen, who was a student, aged about 12 years, was involved in the motor vehicle accident on 03-031999 at about 04:00 p.m., when she was standing near bus stand Manoharabad village on National Highway No.7, when a lorry bearing Regdn.No. AP-9U-6000 driven in a rash and negligent manner came at high speed and dashed against her. She fell down and sustained fracture to the left leg. Ultimately the said fracture resulted in amputation of left leg below the knee level. Under various heads, she claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000=00 against which the learned Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,15,000=00 contending that the amount awarded as compensation is not just and reasonable, she filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of

¶15

compensation.

¶16

4. She was treated as inpatient in Mahatma Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The Medical Board issued disability certificate assessing the disability at 45%, which is partial and permanent in nature. Since the fact that ultimately her left leg was amputated because of the crush injury sustained by her is not in dispute, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the certificate Ex.A-6 issued by the Medical Board can be taken into account for the purpose of considering the said disability more particularly in view of the fact that the respondent-insurance company did not dispute the fact that the amputation of leg was due to the crush injury received by her in the accident to the left leg.

¶17

5. The learned Claims Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000=00 towards permanent disability sustained by the appellant without having recourse to the multiplier method. Admittedly, the appellant was not having any earnings at the time of accident. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have in my view computed compensation basing on multiplier method taking the income of non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule which is Rs.15,000=00 per annum. The loss of earnings so computed by applying the multiplier 15 comes to Rs.15,000 x 45 x 15/100 = 1,01,250=00. Since the appellant filed medical bills for

¶18

Rs.3051/-. The learned Claims Tribunal in my view is justified in granting Rs.5,000=00 towards medical expenses. However, considering the disability, namely, the amputation of left leg below the knee level and the prolonged treatment, for which she was subjected to, the learned Claims Tribunal is not correct in granting an amount of Rs.10,000=00 towards pain and suffering. In the opinion of this Court, the amount granted towards pain and suffering being very low is enhanced to Rs.25,000=00. This apart, an amount of Rs.50,000=00 can be granted to the appellant towards her loss of marriage prospect. In all the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 1,81,250 {Rs. 80,000=00 + Rs.1,01,250=00}. The enhanced amount would be Rs. 66,250=00 [Rs.1,81,250=00 – Rs.1,15,000=00]. The enhanced amount of compensation would come to Rs.66,250=00 which shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶19

6. With the above enhancement in the quantum of compensation, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶21

06-02-2012. I s L

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO

¶23

CMA.NO. 3965 2003

¶24

Circulation No. Date:06-02 -2012 Court Master: I s L Computer No. 43

Kumari Yasmin v. Mr.K. Surender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Yasmin v. Mr.K. Surender Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vs Kantayapalem Ramesh

C.Kusumakumari Vs a.Venkatasubbaiah

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vs Kunduri Venkamma

Veesam Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy, Vs Polavarapu Chandra Rao

M/s. United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Vs Maddala Kotaiah

The Manager Vs K.Anil Kumar, S/o.Kishan, Aged 6 Years, Minor, Under