Dismissed

National Insurance Company Limited v. Immadi Sambaiah

Telangana HC15 Sept 2014MACMA/182/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Insurance Company appealed against the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award, challenging the quantum of compensation primarily on the multiplier calculation. The court held that the award needed no interference as any reduction on the multiplier could be offset by adding amounts for attendant charges and loss of amenities.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed the Tribunal's award of Rs. 4,03,400/- by adjusting the loss of future earnings decrease against awards for attendant charges and loss of amenities.

National Insurance Company Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶2

M.A.C.M.A. No.182 of 2007

¶3

JUDGMENT:

¶4

The National Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, questioning the award and decree dated 04.09.2006 passed in M.V.O.P.No.1659 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (III FTC), Warangal at Mahabubabad.

¶5

For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in O.P.

¶6

The facts in issue are as under:

¶7

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 09.04.2005. It is stated that on the said date after completion of his work over the bullock cart, the claimant kept the bullock cart in front of the house of one Jannu Ravi at Goreekunta and left to Labour Colony on cycle for purchasing grass to the bullocks. After purchasing the grass, the claimant was returning back to village along with the grass. At about 8.30 p.m. when he reached Enumamula cross road, an auto bearing No. AP 36 V 4376 coming from Enumamula, which was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the cycle of the claimant. As a result of which he fell down and sustained fracture injuries on the body. In respect of the above incident a case was registered against the driver of the auto. On seeing the incident one

¶8

Rommati Rajanna, who was running a pan shop shifted the claimant to Hariteja Hospital, Warangal, where he took treatment as inpatient from 09.04.2005 to 23.04.2005. It is stated that the claimant has spent a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and because of the accident his left leg above knee was amputated. Since the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the first respondent, the second respondent who is the subsequent purchaser of the crime vehicle and the vehicle being insured with the third respondent, the claim petition was filed by making all the respondents jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

¶9

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte, while respondent No.3 filed counter disputing the manner in which the accident took place, nature of injuries sustained by the claimant and also his age, income and avocation. In any event, it was stated that the claim made was excessive and exorbitant.

¶10

Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

¶11

1. Whether the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the crime Auto bearing No. AP 36 V 4376, driven by its driver?

¶12

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

¶13

3. To what relief?

¶14

In support of the claim, the claimant examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A22 and Ex.C1. No oral evidence has been adduced on behalf of the respondents but Ex.B1 a copy of the insurance policy was marked with consent.

¶15

After analyzing the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and accordingly awarded a sum of Rs.4,03,400/-/- as compensation. Challenging the same the insurance company preferred the appeal.

¶16

The finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident took place is not challenged by the insurance company. Their main plea is that the compensation awarded to the claimant is on higher side and the same needs to be reduced. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable or whether it is on higher side.

¶17

While admitting the appeal on 06.02.2007, this Court granted interim stay of execution of the award subject to payment of 3/4^th of decretal amount, which was deposited by the insurance company and the same was also withdrawn by the claimant.

¶18

In order prove the nature of injuries, treatment taken and the amount spent towards treatment, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and also the doctor, who treated him as PW.2. In support of his evidence, he got marked the following documents:

¶19

1. Ex.A2 injury certificate,

¶20

2. Ex.A4 discharge card,

¶21

3. Ex.A5 original cash bill,

¶22

4. Ex.A6 disability certificate issued by the Regional Medical Board, Warangal,

¶23

5. Exs.A10 to A20 medical bills,

¶24

6. Ex.A21 cash bill,

¶25

7. Ex.A22 discharge bill of Haritheja Hospital and

¶26

8. Ex.C1 case sheet.

¶27

PW.2 in his evidence categorically deposed that he is the consultant orthopedic surgeon in Hariteja Hospital for the last four years and on 09.04.2005 PW.1 got himself admitted in Hariteja Hospital with the following injuries:

¶28

1. Crush injury left leg with absent pulses – grievous injury

¶29

2. Lacerated wound over forehead measuring 4 x 2 cms simple injury

¶30

3. Contusion over chest – simple injury

¶31

He further deposed that the left leg of the claimant was amputated above knee and he was discharged on 23.04.2005. According to him, the claimant came to M.G.M.Hospital, Warangal for the disability certificate and as he was a member of the Medical Board examined PW.1 and assessed the disability at 70%. Ex.A6 is the disability certificate. Ex.C1 is the case sheet of PW.1 the contents of which were spoken to by PW.2. In his cross examination, PW.2 admitted that due to over sight it was mentioned in Ex.A2 that PW.1 sustained injury on right leg though he sustained injury on left leg. He denied the suggestion with regard to the extent of disability. He also denied that the bills issued by the hospital were on a higher side.

¶32

Ex.A2 is the injury certificate and the contents of which are proved by examining PW.2. Ex.A4 is the discharge sheet would show that on 09.04.2005 PW.1 was admitted in Hariteja Hospital and on the same day his left leg above knee was amputated. In fact the evidence of PW.2 also discloses that it was he, who

¶33

treated the patient immediately after the accident, performed the operation and subsequently as a member of the Medical Board examined PW.1 and assessed the disability at 70%. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the disability which was based on the evidence of PW.2 warrant no interference.

¶34

PW.3 is the employer of PW.1. In his evidence PW.3 stated that he is resident of Gorrekunta village and was engaged by PW.1 as driver of his double bullock cart on a monthly salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. He also narrated about the manner in which the accident took place. In the cross examination, PW.3 denied the suggestion that he did not engage PW.1 as an employee on his bullock cart and did not pay Rs.4,000/- per month. He admits that he did not maintain any register showing payment of salary to PW.1. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the amount paid to the claimant and taking into consideration the minimum wages fixed by the Minimum Wages Board, Warangal to an un-skilled labourer, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.2,600/- per month. Assessing the disability at 70% and by applying multiplier ‘15’ the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,24,600/- towards loss of future earnings on account of disability. As the said findings are based on the evidence available on record, the same warrants no interference.

¶35

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in applying multiplier ‘15’ for calculating the loss of earnings and according to him the proper multiplier to be adopted is ‘14’. The said fact is not seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the claimant, but however submits that the quantum of compensation awarded on other counts such as pain and suffering, transportation are on lower

¶36

side. He further submits that the tribunal did not award any amount towards attendant charges though the claimant was an inpatient in the hospital nearly for 20 days.

¶37

The argument of the learned counsel of the claimant on the above aspect cannot be brushed aside. The material on record would show that the claimant was an in-patient in the hospital for nearly 20 days after the accident. During which period he underwent surgery, where his left leg was amputated. Definitely he must have bed ridden for quite some time after his discharge from the hospital and must have engaged a person to attend on him for his day today activities till he recovers. The tribunal also did not award any amount towards loss of amenities in life. The evidence of doctor clearly discloses that the claimant has to walk with the help of stick and he cannot do the work which he was doing prior to the accident. The claimant must have put to lot of inconvenience in his day today activities. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have awarded suitable amount towards attendant charges and loss of amenities in life. Apart from that an amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering also appears to be on lower side.

¶38

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ranjana Prakash and others v. Divisional Manager and another^[1] where the Apex Court held that in an appeal filed by owner/insurer, if High Court proposes to reduce compensation awarded by Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount

¶39

awarded as compensation, the amount of Rs.18,840/- which got reduced by applying multiplier ‘14’ can be adjusted towards loss of amenities in life and attendant charges. Thus the total compensation of Rs.4,03,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed.

¶40

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these appeals shall stand closed.

¶41

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J

¶42

15.09.2014 gkv

¶43

[1] (2011) 14 SCC 639

National Insurance Company Limited v. Immadi Sambaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

National Insurance Company Limited v. Immadi Sambaiah

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

P.Dheerandra Reddy, Vs N.G.Rama Moorthy

The United India Insurance Company Vs S.Kousar Tasneen

N. Purushotham s/o N. Sunkappa aged 30 years, ( A-2) Vs The State of a.p.

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt.S.Durgamma

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. P.Saroja

Smt.Salla Ramulamma Vs The Andhra Pradesh State road Transport Corporation