The High Court allowed the appeal partly. The single judge enhanced the compensation from Rs. 4.29 lakhs to Rs. 9.86 lakhs, correcting the Tribunal's error on deducting living expenses, applying the correct multiplier, and increasing the interest rate to 7.5% per annum.
Compensation enhanced to Rs. 9,86,000/-; interest rate enhanced to 7.5% per annum.
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.
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA NO. 1158 OF 2008
DATED: 23.02.2012
Between: S.Shekar Reddy .. Appellant And S.Anand Reddy and another .. Respondents
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA NO. 1158 OF 2008
JUDGMENT:
Heard Smt. B.Roja Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the judgment dated 18.01.2008 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.2473 of 2005.
3. Challenge to the judgment passed by the learned Tribunal below is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate.
4. Against the claim of Rs.10 lakhs made by the appellant/injured claimant, the Tribunal below granted an amount of Rs.4,29,000/- under various heads which is said to be not just and reasonable and is very low according to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Whereas it is just and reasonable needs no enhancement, as per the contention urged by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/insurance company.
5. S.Sekhar Reddy, the appellant herein is aged 25 years on the date of accident. He was a commerce graduate and was working as
accountant under M.V.Sesha Reddy, PW.3. PW.3 gave evidence before the Tribunal below that he was paying an amount of Rs.6,000/per month to the appellant. The learned Tribunal however, taking into account that except the oral testimony of PW.3, no other documentary evidence was brought on record by the claimants in the form of account books maintained by the organization of PW.3 rightly and reasonably considered his income at Rs.3,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal however, committed a mistake in deducting 1/3rd of the income towards personal and living expenses of the injured. In personal injury cases, no deductions can be made from the income of the injured. Learned Tribunal applied multiplier ‘17’. But, as per the judgment of SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI
TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1] , the multiplier relevant to the age of the appellant is ‘18’. There is no dispute about the fact that in the accident, the appellant’s right leg was fractured and ultimately it was amputated above the knee. PW.2, the doctor who treated the injured gave evidence before the Tribunal that it is very difficult for the appellant even to walk even with artificial limb. As per his evidence and also as per Ex.A.19-disability certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Kurnool, the appellant sustained 75% of disability. The total loss of earnings sustained by the injured on account of disability comes to Rs.3,000/- x 12 x 18 x 75 divided by 100 = Rs.4,86,000/-.
6. I n KUMARESH v DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL
INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER[2] the Supreme Court dealing with the similar case, granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- for
medical expenses for his whole life, for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including loss of marital prospects an amount of Rs.3,00,000/-, Rs.50,000/towards conveyance charges and Rs.50,000/- towards food and nourishment.. The same amounts can be awarded in the present case also. Therefore, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.4,86,000/- + Rs.5,00,000/- = Rs.9,86,000/. The interest granted at 6% per annum by the learned Tribunal being not reasonable is enhanced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation.
7. With the above enhancement in the compensation amount as well as the rate of interest, the appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
___________________ Date: 23.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm
THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO
MACMA NO. 1158 OF 2008
DATED: 23.02.2012
[1] 2009 ACJ 1298
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal below is adequate and reasonable.
Whether deductions for personal and living expenses should be made from the injured person's income.
Whether interest rate granted is reasonable and multiplier value is correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHERReferred¶13
SARALA VARMA AND OTHERS v DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER [1]
KUMARESH v DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHERFollowed¶15
KUMARESH v DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD AND ANOTHER [2]
S. Shekar Reddy
S. Anand Reddy
R. KANTHA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
