Allowed

Yelgam Narasaiah v. Mohd. Mansoor Ali

Telangana HC6 Mar 2013CMA/1679/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this motor accident compensation appeal, the High Court enhanced the loss of income component awarded by theMotor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Applying the correct multiplier of 9 from Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the total compensation was adjusted while retaining the Tribunal's awards on other heads.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was allowed and the compensation awarded for loss of income was enhanced to Rs. 1,29,600 with an additional Rs.30,000 for attendant charges.

Yelgam Narasaiah Vs Mohd. Mansoor Ali — Medical Negligence | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1679 of 2004

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded in O.P.No.892 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-Addl. District Judge, Khammam.

¶4

2. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in court below. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Addl. District Judge, Khammam by the award dated 05-04-1999 passed in O.P.No.892 of 1996 awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,28,800/- with proportionate costs and interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident.

¶5

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶6

On 15-10-1995 at about 10.30 a.m., the claimant was proceeding to Dharmapuram on his cycle along the left side of the road. In the meanwhile, the offending car bearing No.AHA 223, being driven by its driver, in rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against his cycle from behind. The claimant fell down and sustained fracture of his right leg and other injuries. He was shifted to Government Hospital, Warangal. It is his case that as a result of injury he became crippled. It is also his case that he was working as mason and earning Rs.75/- per day and that he was aged about 50 years and would have worked for another 18 years. The first respondent who is the driver of the car remained exparty. The second and third respondents filed

¶7

counters denying the averments made by the claimant.

¶8

4. The trial Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

¶9

1. Whether the petitioner Y. Narsaiah sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of Car bearing AHA 223 by its driver/R1?

¶10

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

¶11

3. To what relief?

¶12

5. The petitioner himself was examined as PW1 and the doctor was examined as PW2 on commission and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the Insurance Company but copy of the policy was marked as Ex.B1.

¶13

6. On the issue of negligence on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car. The said finding is not in dispute.

¶14

7. As far as issue No.2 is concerned, the Tribunal determined the age of the claimant as 60 years and his income at Rs.1,200/per month and by applying multiplier ‘5’ awarded a sum of Rs.72,000/- as compensation towards loss of income. The Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the fracture injury, Rs.3,000/- to the simple injuries, Rs.30,000/- towards attendant charges and extra-nourishment and Rs.3,800/- towards medical expenses.

¶15

8. The claimant aggrieved by the same seeking enhancement of compensation, filed this appeal. As far as the amounts awarded on other heads are concerned there is no dispute but as far as the amount awarded towards loss of income is concerned, the main contention of Sri Nandigama Krishna Rao, the learned counsel for

¶16

the appellant is that as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another^[1] , the correct multiplier relevant is ‘9’.

¶17

9. As far as the multiplier is concerned it is not in dispute that ‘9’ multiplier is applicable as per the Sarla Verma’s case. If the said multiplier is applied, the total compensation for loss of income comes to Rs.1,29,600/-. Though the learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance Company submits that awarding Rs.30,000/towards attendant charges and extra nourishment appears to be excess but it has to be seen that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards compensation for loss of earnings during the period of treatment. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, if an amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded towards attendant charges and extra-nourishment includes the loss of earnings during the period of treatment, the same appears to be just and reasonable. Thus, total compensation would come to Rs.1,86,400/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum.

¶18

10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed.

¶19

11. Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J

¶21

March 06, 2013 PN

¶22

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶23

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1679 of 2004