Allowed

Yedavalli Shyam Prasad v. Chilakala Venkateswar Rao

Telangana HC8 Dec 2014MACMA/103/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal award in a case involving a scooter-pillion rider who suffered amputation. The Court enhanced the compensation to Rs. 7,40,000/-, rejecting the Tribunal's multiplier method in favor of a fixed sum based on the injury severity.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced to Rs. 7,40,000/- along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition.

Yedavalli Shyam Prasad Vs Chilakala Venkateswar Rao — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE B.SIVA SANKARA RAO M.A.C.M.A No.103 OF 2008

¶2

JUDGMENT:

¶3

The injured claimant, who is no other than Branch Manager, Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Sujathanagar, Julurpad Mandal, Khammam District, preferred the appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, at Khamma (for short, ’Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P No.97 of 2005 dated 13.09.2007, awarding compensation of Rs.6,80,000/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum, as against the claim of Rs.14,40,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 08.05.2004 at Sujathanagar on the State Highway between Khamma and Wyra, as against the respondents 1 and 2 viz., the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle (lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 3004) for enhancement of compensation as prayed for in the claim petition under Sections 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’).

¶4

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent-National Insurance Company Limited. The 1^st respondent despite served with notice called absent with no representation, taken as heard the 1^st respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal.

¶5

3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; awarded that the Tribunal was erred in adopting the multiplier method and failed to apply correct multiplier and percentage of disability and thereby the award of the Tribunal is

¶6

liable to be set aside and allowed the appeal as prayed for.

¶7

4. Whereas it is the contention of counsel for the insurance company that the award of the tribunal is just and for this Court while sitting in appeal there is nothing to interfere, hence to dismiss the appeal.

¶8

5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are:

¶9

1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal against the award and if so with what enhancement to arrive a just compensation and with what rate of interest?

¶10

2. To what result?

¶11

POINT-1:

¶12

6. The facts of the case as proved before the Tribunal and not in dispute in this appeal are that, on 08.05.2004 the petitioner and one V.Ramachandra Rao, field assistant in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank were started on a scooter to go to wyra, V.Ramachandra Rao was driving the scooter and the claim petitioner was pillion rider of the scooter. When they reached Thallada Ring Road Centre by 5.30 pm, the respondent No.1, who was driving the tanker lorry bearing No.AP 20 T 3004 came in a rash and negligent manner with high speed from Kalluru side proceeding towards wyra side and dashed the scooter bearing No.AEH 5784 from its behind. As a result of which, the claim petitioner and V.Rama Chander Rao, fallen on the road and the wheels of the lorry has passed on the left leg of the claim petitioner and as a result, the left leg of the claim petitioner was badly crushed and the entire bone below left knee has resulted into small pieces and the below knee portion was having freely without any support of the bone. The claim petitioner and V.Ramachandra Rao had given first aid in Thallada and as the condition of the claim petitioner was serious, immediately he was shifted to Cure Hospital, Khammam, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 First Information Report in

¶13

Cr.No.66 of 2004 under Section 337, IPC and investigated and filed the charge sheet u/s 338 and 337 IPC.

¶14

7. The evidence on record including the evidence of PW.3 Doctor says there was amputation of left leg above knee level and the disability is 75%. However, the Tribunal wrongly assessed 50% disability instead of taking 70% for the above knee level including as per the schedule of Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. However, the fact remains from the evidence on record including from the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and also with reference to Ex.A1 to A10, that the claimant (appellant) was removed from the job or demoted in rank or scale or lost promotional prospects from the amputation. In the absence of which it is not the multiplier method but the fixed sum that tobe awarded for the total disability in respect of the percentage of disability of permanent nature for the inability to attend the ordinary pursuits and to lead the ordinary life as was prior to the accident vide Apex Court’s expression in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kuma r^[1] .

¶15

8. When such is the case, no doubt, from the amputation the petitioner is unable to attend the ordinary pursuits and attend any work without assistance and even after post retirement the disability is for rest of whole life; it is just to award as compensation the fixed sum (lumpsum) of Rs.4,00,000/- for the permanent disability and Rs.1,40,000/- towards pain and suffering, attendant charges, transport charges, extra nourishment and medical expenses and Rs.2,00,000/for purchase of artificial limb and also future replacement vide decision in Govinda Yadav vs NIC^[2] , totally it comes to Rs.7,40,000/-.

¶16

Accordingly, point No.1 is answered.

¶17

Point No.2:

¶18

9. In the result, the appeal is allowed by enhancing the compensation from Rs.6,80,000/- (Rupees six lakhs eighty thousand only) to Rs.7,40,000/- (Rupees Seven Lakhs Forty thousand only) with

¶19

interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Rest of the terms of Tribunal holds good. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.

¶20

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this MACMA shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RĀO, J

¶22

Date: 09-12-2014 knl

¶23

[1] 2011 ACJ 1

¶24

[2] 2011 (12) scale 336

Yedavalli Shyam Prasad v. Chilakala Venkateswar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yedavalli Shyam Prasad v. Chilakala Venkateswar Rao

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 New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Sandhi Bhagyamma

Icici Lombard General Insurance Co. Limited Vs Sadu Venkaiah

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs P.S. Satyanarayana

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs Manne Laxmi

The Chairman, Apsrtc Vs Kandregula Venkateswara Rao

National Insurance Company Limited, Vs I.Laxmaiah