Partly allowed

V.Sarvothama Rao v. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Telangana HC6 Mar 2013MACMA/1389/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice B. Chandra Kumar partly allowed the claimant's appeal in a motor accident case, enhancing the total compensation from Rs.5,59,000/- to Rs.6,00,000/- with 6% p.a. interest, dismissing the insurer's appeal, and closing pending miscellaneous applications.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced compensation awarded to the claimant; MACMA by Insurance Company dismissed; pending appeals closed.

V.Sarvothama Rao Vs The United India Insurance… — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR

¶2

MACMAMP Nos.2775 and 2776 of 2012

¶3

in M.A.C.M.A. No. 1389 of 2012

¶4

and M.A.C.M.A. Nos. 1363 of 2010 and 1389 of 2012

¶5

Common Judgment:

¶6

Since the issues and parties involved in both the appeals are common in nature, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

¶7

The appellant in MACMA No.1389 of 2012 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The claimant filed M.V.O.P. No. 234 of 2007 claiming total compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. The Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, by an award dated 23.04.2010 passed in M.V.O.P. No.234 of 2007, awarded compensation of Rs.5,59,000/together with interest at 7.5% p.a. to the claimant. The claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount from Rs.9,00,000/- to Rs.13,10,000/- with interest at 12% p.a.

¶8

Whereas aggrieved by the orders dated 23.04.2010 passed in M.V.O.P. No.234 of 2007 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, the Insurance Company filed M.A.C.M.A. No. 1363 of 2010.

¶9

The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.

¶10

The claimant’s specific case is that on 25.11.2006 at about 6.00 PM while himself and his friend P. Lakshman Rao were proceeding slowly for evening walk, the driver of the water tanker bearing No. AP 27C 7683/7684 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner

¶11

and dashed against them. The claimant fell down and sustained injuries resulting in amputation of both the legs above the knee level.

¶12

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle. He remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. Respondent No.2 filed counter and pleaded that the claimant himself was responsible and contributed to the accident. It is also the case of respondent No.2 that the claim of the claimant is highly excessive and exorbitant.

¶13

The Tribunal framed the following issues.

¶14

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 25.11.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of the water tanker/trolley bearing No. AP 27C 7683 by its driver?

¶15

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation, and if so, how much amount and from which of the respondents?

¶16

3. To what relief?

¶17

On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A20 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company none were examined except marking the copy of insurance policy as Ex.B1.

¶18

The Tribunal on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the water tanker and the said finding is not in dispute in this case.

¶19

On the issue of awarding compensation, the Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.7,000/- per month and assessed the annual income of the claimant at Rs.84,000/-. The Tribunal by applying the multiplier ‘5’ has calculated the total loss of earnings at Rs.4,20,000/-, but considering 90% permanent disability awarded

¶20

Rs.3,78,000/- towards loss of future income. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nutrition, Rs.1,20,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.1,000/- towards transport charges. Thus, awarded total sum of Rs.5,59,000/-.

¶21

Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the claimant had undergone three surgeries and had taken treatment for 4 ½ months from 25.11.2006 to 04.04.2007 and this was not considered by the Tribunal. It is further argued that the total medical expenses came to Rs.1,20,000/- and therefore awarding of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses is quite inadequate. It is also argued that the claimant claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering, but the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. It is also argued that no amount is awarded towards diet and nutrition against the claim of Rs.20,000/-. It is also argued that the claimant claimed an amount of Rs.2,73,000/- towards attendant charges, but the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.1,20,000/- under the said head. He has relied on the decision reported in R.D. Hattangadi

¶22

v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd .^[1] , with regard to the principles laid down for awarding compensation in case of injuries.

¶23

The claimant claimed that he owns Ac.8.51 cents of land in Peravalipalem, Vemuru Mandal, Guntur District. According to him, he used to cultivate the land and getting income of Rs.15,000/- per annum per acre. According to him, the annual income comes to Rs.1,27,500/-. He produced Ex.A14 property certificate, issued by the Village Administrative Officer and signed by the Tahsildar and Ex.A19 agriculture income certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Vemur Mandal, showing that approximate income is Rs.1,27,500/-. PW2, who is neighbour of the land, deposed that the annual income from

¶24

agricultural lands is Rs.15,000/- per annum per acre. The claimant claimed a total compensation of Rs.3,82,500/- from the lands of agricultural income @ Rs.85,000/- per annum for five years. So far as agricultural lands are concerned, the claimant continues to hold the land after the accident. Of course, he may not be in a position to personally supervise the agricultural property, he has to engage some other person to supervise or lease out the agricultural lands. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is total loss of income from Ac.8.51 cents. So far as supervisory charges are concerned, it appears that an amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded, the same would meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of income from agriculture for not supervising the agriculture personally by the claimant.

¶25

The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,78,000/- on the ground that the claimant was getting Rs.7,000/- per month and taking the loss of income at Rs.7,000/- per month. The claimant himself admits that he is getting pension. The claimant himself stated in the written statement that the Tribunal has erroneously and unilaterally taken a decision that he is getting Rs.7,000/- per month. He never claimed on that basis. In the above circumstances, there is no need to award any amount. Therefore, it is sufficient if an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded towards loss of income, due to supervision of agriculture by the claimant.

¶26

The claimant claimed Rs.2,73,000/- towards attendant charges, but the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,20,000/- under the said head. There cannot be any doubt to say that the claimant required a permanent attendant for his life time. According to the claimant, he has paid Rs.33,000/- towards attendant charges from 15.07.2007 to 30.06.2008 and the cash receipt issued by PW.4 is marked as Ex.A20. The further

¶27

case of the claimant is that as per the request made by PW.4, he has increased the attendant charges from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2008. He filed additional evidence of the cash receipt issued by PW.4 for Rs.81,000/- at Rs.3,000/- per month with effect from 01.07.2008 to 30.09.2010. PW.4 deposed that he is working as attendant under PW.1 and receiving Rs.2,000/- per month and he issuedEx.A20 receipt bearing his signature. According to the claimant, the span of life of his forefathers is 80 years and on the same analogy he is also expected to live up to 80 years and claimed enhanced compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards attendant charges. As far as the attendant charges are concerned, it appears that the multiplier system is not applicable since the claimant requires attendant charges through out his life. The claimant is aged about 65 years as on the date of the accident. Therefore, he may require attendant charges for about 10 to 15 years on reasonable expectation of the span of life of the claimant. The claimant originally claimed Rs.2,73,000/-. Now he is seeking enhanced compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- under the head permanent attendant charges for his life. Having regard to the evidence of PWs.1 and 4 and having regard to the span of life and the present day cost of living it appears that it would be just and reasonable to award Rs.3,00,000/- under the head of attendant charges.

¶28

The claimant claimed Rs.1,20,000/towards medical expenses. The Tribunal awarded Rs.50,000/- under this head. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the medical evidence. PW.3, the Orthopedic Surgeon working at Kamineni Hospital, has deposed about the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment given to him. According to him, emergency surgery was conducted

¶29

above knee amputation of both lower limbs. As far as medical bills are concerned PW.3 deposed that he is not involved in the billing procedure of the hospital. As seen from the contents of Ex.A13 total expenditure incurred by the claimant is Rs.1,14,210/-, out of which he was sanctioned Rs.98,990/- by the Family Health Plan Limited, Hyderabad under the insurance policy. The amount disallowed is Rs.15,220/-. The claimant has admitted the fact that Rs.98,990/- was paid by the Insurance Company to Kamineni Hospital. Ex.A11 shows that the claimant spent total amount of Rs.15,451-60 ps., for medicines under six different bills and under Ex.A12 the total medical bills amount is shown at Rs.16,801-60 Ps. The Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs.50,000/-. The contention of the claimant is that future medical expenses were not taken into consideration. It has to be seen that the claimant would get benefit under the Insurance policy taken by his son and whatever medical expenses incurred by him will be reimbursed. In the circumstances, it may be just and reasonable to award in all an amount of Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses.

¶30

The claimant claimed Rs.3,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. According to PW.3 the claimant sustained the following injuries (1) crush injury to the right thigh and leg, (2) crush injury of the left leg with degloving injury to the thigh exposing muscles and bones, (3) vascular injury to both lower limbs, (4) comminuted fracture of right upper tibia, (5) comminuted fracture of lower firmer (right) and (6) comminuted fracture to left upper tibia. He further deposed that at the time of admission the claimant was in shock and emergency surgery was performed and both lower limbs above knee level were amputated. According to the claimant he was treated as inpatient from 25.11.2006 to 09.12.2006 and subsequently from 13.12.2006 to 23.12.2006 and from 03.04.2007 to 07.04.2007. It

¶31

appears that he was again operated on 04.04.2007. The doctor has assessed the disability at 90%. Having regard to the nature of injuries and amputation of both the lower limbs above knee, the operations undergone by him and follow up treatment, it is clear that the claimant sustained grievous injuries and had to undergo severe pain and suffering. In the circumstances,

¶32

I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/towards pain and suffering.

¶33

The claimant claimed Rs.20,000/- towards expenditure on diet and nutrition. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nutrition. In the circumstances, the claimant is awarded Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/towards transport charges.

¶34

Since compensation has been awarded for pain and suffering, medical expenses and attendant charges, there is no need to award any amount towards bed sore and dressing charges during the post operative period.

¶35

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, MACMA No.1363 of 2010 filed by the Insurance Company stands dismissed. MACMA No.1389 of 2012 filed by the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,59,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand) to Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs only). The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 6% p.a. No costs.

¶36

Since the total amount awarded does not exceed the amount claimed by the claimant, there is no need to pass any orders in MACMAMP Nos.2775 and 2776 of 2012. Accordingly, MACMAMP Nos.2775 and 2776 of 2012 are closed.

¶37

B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J.

¶38

Date: 06^th March 2013 Nsr/Rkk

¶39

[1] 1995 ACJ 366

V.Sarvothama Rao v. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Sarvothama Rao v. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B.Jogiramaiah Vs Sri Sombabu, I.A.S

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri B.Visweswara Rao

Gangapuram Malleswari, Vs T.Chiranjeevulu, IAS

B.Narayana, Vs Sri K.Sampath Kumar

Yelgam Narasaiah Vs Mohd. Mansoor Ali

M. Sailaja Vs Sri Naga Shivudu