Partly allowed

Y. Jaya Ranga Reddy, v. B. Venkata Ramudu

Telangana HC1 Mar 2013MACMA/2775/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single Judge enhanced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a vehicular accident case involving claimant's below-knee amputation. The court addressed disputes over disability percentage, income calculation, and inclusion of future medical expenses for prosthetic limb replacement, while dismissing claims against unrelated motorcycle owners.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs.4,00,000/- with 9% interest. Liability confirmed jointly and severally against Respondents 1 and 2 only; claims against Respondents 3 and 4 dismissed.

Y. Jaya Ranga Reddy, Vs B. Venkata Ramudu — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶2

M.A.C.M. A.No.2775 of 2007

¶3

Date: 01-3-2013

¶4

Between

¶5

Y.Jaya Ranga Reddy

¶6

... Appellant/Petitioner

and

B.Venkata Ramudu

and 3 others

Respondents/Respondents

¶11

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶12

M.A.C.M.A.No.2775 of 2007

¶13

Judgment:

¶14

This is a claimant’s appeal. A claim was laid under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimant seeking compensation at Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a vehicular accident. He also sought for interest at 16% per annum.

¶15

He examined himself as P.W.1. The claimant further examined the doctor as P.W.2. Exs.A-1 to A-8 and X-1 were marked on behalf of the claimant. Ex.B-1 was marked on behalf of the 2^nd respondent. The respondents however did not choose to examine anyone in support of their claim. The learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Kurnool (the Tribunal, for short) awarded compensation at Rs.1,47,606/- together with interest at 9% per annum. The respondents 1 and 2 alone were held jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. Aggrieved by the quantum awarded, the present appeal is preferred.

¶16

2. Sri A.Jaya Sankara Reddy, learned counsel for the claimant, contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very low and deserves to be enhanced. The case of the claimant is that he was an agriculturist as well as a broker and was earning Rs.1,00,000/- as an

¶17

agriculturist and Rs.30,000/- as a broker per year. His further case is that on 12-9-2002, he was travelling in the motorcycle of the 3^rd respondent as a pillion-rider and that the offending auto owned by the 1^st respondent and insured with the 2^nd respondent was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the auto resulting in the auto dashing against the motorcycle on which the claimant was travelling. The claim thus is that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending auto.

¶18

3. However, the claimant impleaded the owner of the motorcycle (on which he was travelling as a pillion-rider) and the insurer thereof as the respondents 3 and 4. In view of the ocular evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A-1 certified copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A-6 certified copy of the calendar and judgment in C.C.No.38 of 2003, the Tribunal concluded that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that the respondents 1 and 2 as the owner and the insurer of the auto were jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim of the injured claimant. The Tribunal dismissed the claim against the respondents 3 and 4. The claimant did not prefer any appeal over this part of the finding of the Tribunal.

¶19

The respondents 1 and 2 did not prefer any appeal from the award. Consequently, the award has become final so

¶20

far as the negligence and liability are concerned. Whatever compensation is payable shall be paid jointly and severally by the respondents 1 and 2. The claim is not sustainable against the respondents 3 and 4. This appeal consequently deserves to be dismissed as against the respondents 3 and 4. The claimant himself filed the appeal only against the 2^nd respondent, who is the insurer of the auto, recording that the respondents 1, 3 and 4 are not necessary parties to this appeal. The claim therefore runs on a narrow compass as to what is the quantum of compensation that is payable. Indeed, the respondents 1 and 2 would jointly and severally be liable to pay the quantum of compensation that is determined.

¶21

4. The claimant sustained crush injury on his right leg. It would appear that gangrin formed over the right leg necessitating the amputation of the right leg below knee level. P.W.2 is an Orthopaedic Surgeon in the Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He treated the claimant. Amputation of the right leg of the claimant was done by P.W.2. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant, P.W.2 is a competent witness to speak about the rate of disability.

¶22

5. P.W.2 opined that the claimant suffered disability to a tune of 70%. Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. The Medical Board also opined that the disability was 70%. The Tribunal however

¶23

considered rate of disability at 50% only.

¶24

As pointed out by Sri M.V.Rajaram, learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent-insurer, it is the functional disability, which shall determine the rate of disability and not the physical disability. Regarding the functional disability, Schedule I Part II of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, determined the percentage of loss of earning capacity at 70% where the amputation was below hip and considered it to be at 60% if the amputation was below knee level. Where admittedly the amputation was below knee level in the present case, taking functional disability into consideration in the light of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, it would be just and proper to determine the rate of disability at 60%. 6. The claimant, as already pointed out, asserts that he is an agriculturist and a broker and has been earning Rs.1,00,000/- as an agriculturist and Rs.30,000/- as a broker per year. The claimant produced Ex.A-8 Ryot Pass Book. He however did not produce any proof regarding his calling as an agriculturist or his income either as an agriculturist or as a broker. There is no alternative but to determine the income of the claimant notionally. Where the claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident and where the accident occurred in 2002, I consider that it would be just and reasonable to determine the notional income of the claimant at

¶25

Rs.3,000/- per month and at Rs.36,000/- per annum.

¶26

7. As the rate of disability is considered to be at 60%, the annual notional loss of income on account of the amputation that the claimant sustained (at 60%) is Rs.21,600/-. As the claimant was 45 years old at the time of the accident, multiplier ‘14’ would be the appropriate multiplier. If the annual loss of income at Rs.21,600/- is multiplied by 14, the amount would be Rs.3,02,400/-. The claimant shall be entitled to compensation Rs.3,02,400/towards pain and sufferance on account of the injuries sustained by him. The claimant produced as many as 78 medical bills under Ex.A-7. The Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards medical expenses. The total of the medical bills is to a tune of Rs.12,109=95 ps. Taking other medical expenses into consideration, it would be just and proper to award Rs.15,600/- towards medical expenses. Where the claimant suffered amputation of the lower extremity, I deem it appropriate to award Rs.3,000/towards transport charges.

¶27

8. The claimant sustained accident on 12-9-2002. The amputation was effected on 08-01-2003. The claimant was unwell during this period. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant, a further period of 5 months and in all about 9 months deserves to be treated as the period of bed-rest for the claimant. Where the notional monthly income of the

¶28

claimant was Rs.3,000/- the claimant suffered loss of income for 9 months to a total tune of Rs.27,000/-. The claimant shall be entitled to the same. The claimant is also entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment in view of the age and the nature of the injuries the claimant sustained.

¶29

9. The claimant accord	ingly is entitled	to
compensation at: (a) Compensation towards pain and sufferance for the injury and amputation	… Rs.3,02,400/-
(b) Compensation towards medical bills	… 15,600/-
(c) Compensation towards transport charges	… 3,000/-
(d) Compensation towards loss of income for a period of 9 months	… 27,000/-
(e) Compensation towards extra nourishment	… 5,000/- -----------------
Total …	Rs.3,53,000/- -----------------

¶30

10. The learned counsel for the claimant however contended that it would be just and reasonable to award compensation at Rs.6,00,000/-.

¶31

(a) The learned counsel for the claimant placed reliance upon M.Jaganathan v. Pallavan Transport

¶32

Corporation Ltd .^[1] . In that case, there was amputation of the left leg above knee level. The injured was hospitalised for a period of about 5 months. He was on medical leave for a period of 7½ months. The injured was 45 years old and was working as a Technician in the Railways. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court considered it appropriate to award compensation at Rs.4,50,000/-.

¶33

(b) In Pyar Chand v. Himachal Pradesh Road Trans. Corpn .^[2] , the victim suffered amputation of the right leg below knee level. The injured was hospitalised for more than 3 months. He suffered trauma of 12 operations. The rate of disability that the injured suffered was assessed at 70%. The Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla awarded compensation at Rs.5,00,000/-.

¶34

(c) In NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH^[3] , future medical expenses were also taken into consideration in awarding compensation. However, the learned counsel for the claimant submits that the artificial limb is liable to be changed once in 3 years and that necessary compensation deserves to be awarded taking future expenses into consideration. In view of NAGAPPA case (3 supra), it is just and reasonable to award further amounts towards future medical expenses. Approximately, Rs.47,000/- may be allocated to the

¶35

claimant towards future medical expenses.

¶36

(d) In Guddu v. Ramla l^[4] , when the injured suffered amputation of the left leg below knee level and the rate of disability was considered to be at 60%, a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, granted compensation at Rs.5,30,200/-. However, in view of the elaborate calculation already made out, I am afraid that the claimant would not be entitled to further compensation barring for future medical expenses to be added to the calculation already arrived at.

¶37

11. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent contended that NAGAPPA (3 supra) and other cases do not apply to the present circumstances. I am afraid that the rationale of NAGAPPA (3 supra) applies with equal force to the present case. I therefore deem it appropriate to award compensation in terms of the calculation noted below:

¶38

(a) Compensation towards … Rs.3,02,400/- pain and sufferance for the injury and amputation
(b) Compensation towards … 15,600/- medical bills
(c) Compensation towards … 3,000/- transport charges

¶39

(d) Compensation towards … 27,000/loss of income for a period of 9 months

¶40

(e) Compensation towards … 5,000/extra nourishment (f) Compensation towards … 47,000/future medical expenses

¶41

----------------Total … Rs.4,00,000/-----------------

¶42

12. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The claimant is entitled to compensation at Rs.4,00,000/(Rupees four lakhs only) together with interest at 9% per annum as awarded by the Tribunal. The respondents 1 and 2 alone are jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. The respondents 3 and 4 are not liable to answer the claim. The appeal against the respondents 3 and 4 stands dismissed. No costs.

¶43

13. The respondents 1 and 2 shall deposit the awarded amount within one month from today. In view of the nature of the injuries that the claimant sustained, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) at the first instance after deposit. The balance shall lie in Fixed Deposit. The claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the balance at Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees one lakh only) once in every 3 (three) years. As the last instalment, the claimant may withdraw the balance, if any, together with interest.

¶44

In case of urgency for withdrawal, the claimant may approach the Tribunal. In such an event, it is the Tribunal,

¶45

which shall decide the question of withdrawals.

¶46

K.G.SHANKAR, J. 01^st March, 2013. Ak

¶47

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR

¶48

M.A.C.M.A.No.2775 of 2007 (P.D. Judgment)

¶49

01^st March, 2013. (Ak)