Partly allowed

B.Narayana v. C.Pedda Amarnath

Telangana HC1 Feb 2012MACMA/327/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal filed against quantum of compensation for 60% disability sustained in an accident. Court directed recomputation using multiplier method, awarded ₹2,78,143 including medical and pain/suffering compensation, with 6% interest from petition date.

What did the court decide?

Appellant granted compensation of ₹2,78,143 with 6% per annum interest from date of petition until realization.

B.Narayana Vs C.Pedda Amarnath — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶2

M.A.C.M.A.No. 327 of 2007

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

Heard both sides.

¶5

The appellant/injured claimed compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal below for the injuries sustained by him in an accident that occurred on 29.5.2007. Since the appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, other aspects need not be adhered to.

¶6

Admittedly, the appellant is a labourer and he received a crush injury to the right leg and during the course of treatment, his right leg was amputated. The learned Tribunal without appreciating the medical evidence that the appellant sustained 60% disability and without following the multiplier method awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,24,800/- in a lump sum. Since the approach adopted by the Tribunal is not correct, the compensation has to be computed basing the multiplier method.

¶7

For the purpose of computing the compensation, the income of the appellant/injured, who is a labourer, can be taken at Rs. 2,000/- per month, which comes to Rs. 24,000/- p.a. The disability sustained by the appellant as per the medical evidence adduced before the Tribunal is 60%, which is partial and permanent in nature.

¶8

The appellant/injured was 40 years as on the date of accident. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation^[1] , the multiplier that is to be applied to the age group of appellant is 15. Therefore, the total loss of earnings of the appellant comes to Rs. 2,16,000/- ( 24,000X12/60/100X15). To this amount, an amount of Rs. 37,143/- towards medical expenditure can be

¶9

added. The Tribunal below did not award any compensation towards pain and suffering. An amount of Rs. 25,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all the appellant is granted a compensation of Rs. 2,78,143/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

¶10

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶11

____________________ R.KANTHA RAO, J 01.02.2012. KRB.

¶12

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO

¶13

M.A.C.M.A.No. 327 of 2007

¶14

ORDER:

¶15

Dt. 01.02.2012.

¶16

[1] 2009 ACJ 1298

B.Narayana v. C.Pedda Amarnath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Narayana v. C.Pedda Amarnath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Mamidi Trinadh

Shilveru Ramulu Vs B. Bikshapathy

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs D. Jaffar , Shasik Jaffar, age 10 years, Minor by Father

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Burra Anitha , Anthamma

The National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Poshagoni Savitha

Kadimidi Ramana Vs Kotana Appalanaidu