Petitioner appealed against Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Award. Court upheld Tribunal finding that medical evidence showed only minor injuries (laceration, abrasion) not constituting permanent disability. Appeal dismissed.
Appeal dismissed; Tribunal Award of Rs.4,500/- including Rs.500/- for treatment and transportation sustained.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
M.A.C.M.A. No.1254 of 2017
JUDGMENT:
Dissatisfied with the Award dated 01.02.2017 in OP.No.485 of 2013 passed by the Chairman, MACT–Cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, awarding compensation of Rs.4,500/- together with interest at 8% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, the claimant/petitioner preferred the present appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act.
The claimant/petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of MV Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, in road accident that occurred on 9.6.2011 at about 12.20 pm when he along with some others were travelling in the auto bearing No. AP 24 U 6902 and when it reached near petrol bunk in the outskirts of Gopalapuram Village. It is contended that though the driver of the auto was driving the vehicle in a cautious manner, the opposite vehicle driver i.e., the driver of the tractor bearing No.AP 24 P 1469 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without observing the traffic rules and caused the accident and in the said accident, the claimant allegedly received compound fracture of left leg, fracture of right leg knee joint, fracture of left foot, fracture of left fore arm and multiple injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to government area hospital for treatment and on intimation, the police registered the same as a case in Cr.No.105 of 2011 for the
2
offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304-A IPC against the driver of the tractor of respondent No.1.
It is also contended that the claimant was earning Rs.6000/- as coolie, on account of the injuries sustained by him, he became permanently disabled and lost his future earning capacity and therefore, he sought compensation of Rs.5000/- towards transportation expenses, Rs.45,000/- towards extra nourishment and treatment and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,25,000/- under the head of Continuing or Permanent Disability.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the insurer and insured of the tractor respectively and they are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. Respondent No.3/owner of the auto, was impleaded as per Orders in I.A.No.389 of 2016 dt. 31.08.2016.
Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 remained ex parte before the Tribunal.
Respondent No.2 alone filed Counter denying the material allegations inter alia contending that the tractor bearing No.AP 24 P 1469 did not involve in the accident and the driver of the tractor was not holding any valid driving license at the time of accident and the claimant did not sustain any injuries much less grievous injuries which would create any permanent disability, reducing him future earning capacity and prayed for dismissal of the petition.
3
Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal:
During trial, on behalf of claimant, PW.1 was examined and Exs. A.1 to A.4 were marked. On behalf of respondents, Rw.1 was examined and Exs. B.1 to B.3 marked.
Upon hearing the argument of both the counsel, the Tribunal concluded that the claimant sustained only one laceration and one abrasion, which are certified as simple in nature vide Ex.A.3, and which would not create any disability much less permanent disability which reduces future earning capacity, and thereby awarded only Rs.4,500/- as compensation towards pain and suffering and transportation charges.
Aggrieved by the Award of the Tribunal, the present Appeal is filed by the claimant contending that Tribunal did not consider various aspects regarding the permanent disability including the injuries sustained by the claimant and that the Tribunal awarded meagre compensation of Rs.4,500/-. Though the claimant incurred Rs.5000/towards transport to hospital, it awarded only Rs.500/- and he also incurred Rs.45,000/- towards extra nourishment and treatment, but the Tribunal did not consider the evidence produced before the Tribunal.
4
It is also contended that on account of injuries, the claimant suffered untold pain, but the Tribunal did not consider the pain which the claimant experienced and thereby committed grave error in awarding meagre amount as compensation.
During hearing, at the stage of admission, the learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the claimant sustained four fractures, but the Tribunal did not consider the nature of injuries which would drastically reduces the future earning capacity of the claimant and awarded meagre amount and prayed to set side the Order and award compensation as claimed at Rs.2,00,000/-.
The Tribunal while recording the finding with regard to rashness and negligence held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of the driver of the tractor and this finding is not assailed before this Court and therefore, I need not disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor. Hence, the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence is not disturbed.
The only question before this Court is the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. According to claimant, he sustained compound fracture to left leg, fracture of right leg knee joint, fracture of left foot, fracture of left fore arm and multiple injuries all over the body and on account of those injuries, which are
5
grievous in nature, the petitioner being a coolie became permanently disabled and his earning capacity was reduced drastically, in future. But, the Tribunal did not consider the same. The basis for the claim to contend that he sustained four fractures is Ex.A.3 produced before the Tribunal i.e., the Medical Certificate issued by Government Area Hospital, Huzurnagar. In the said Certificate, the Doctor certified that the claimant sustained only one laceration and one abrasion, which are simple in nature. Therefore, such conclusion would not create any permanent disablement as defined hereunder:
Section 142 of MV Act defines the word “ permanent
disablement” as follows:
“For the purpose of this Chapter, permanent disablement of a person shall be deemed to have resulted from an accident of the nature referred to in sub-section (1) of Section 140 if such person has suffered by reason of the accident, any injury or injuries involving permanent privation of the sight of either eye or the hearing of either ear, or privation of any member or joint; or destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint or permanent disfiguration of the head or face”.
Here, no doubt, the Tribunal can grant compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earnings if the claimant is able to establish that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant, his future earning capacity is reduced to any extent.
In R a j Ku m a r v . Aja y Ku m a r a n d a n oth er1 , the Apex Court laid down certain guidelines for grant of compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earnings on account of permanent disability. Even according to the judgment of the Tribunal, the injuries sustained by
1 2011 ACJ page 1
6
the claimant if reduced, the future earning capacity of the claimant after exhausting medical remedies, the claimant is entitled to claim compensation. But here, the claimant sustained only one laceration and one abrasion which would not cause any permanent disability, reducing his future earning capacity. In the absence of proof that on account of injuries his future earning capacity was reduced to any extent, he is disentitled to compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earnings. However, the claimant, at best, entitle to claim compensation under the head of Pain and Suffering. Therefore, the Tribunal, rightly awarded compensation of Rs.4,000/- under the head of Pain and Suffering for the said injuries. He was admittedly treated in Government Area Hospital, Huzurnagar, where the treatment is at free of cost. But, the Tribunal awarded Rs.500/- towards treatment and transportation which remain unchallenged by the insurance company. Therefore, the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be meager or low and it is just and reasonable compensation, as the Tribunal after considering the nature of injuries and nature of treatment, awarded the above said compensation to the claimant.
He also claimed Rs.45,000/- under the head of Extra Nourishment and Treatment and future treatment. For laceration and abrasion, no extra nourishment is required, but laid a claim for Rs.45,000/- without any basis and therefore the rejection of claim by the Tribunal is not an error.
7
He also claimed transportation expenses of Rs.5000/-, but in view of my above discussion in the earlier paras, awarding of Rs.500/towards transportation charges is just amount. Hence, I find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court while exercising power under Section 173 of MV Act.
Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A is dismissed at the stage of admission.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall
stand closed.
_________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J Date: 08.06.2017 eha
8
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
M.A.C.M.A. No.1254 of 2017
Dt. 08‐06‐2017
eha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was warranting interference by this Court?
Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation under the head of Loss of Future Earnings?
Whether the claimant sustained injuries resulting in permanent disability?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and anotherReferred¶33
Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and another 2011 ACJ page 1
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Claimant/Petitioner
Respondent Nos. 1 and 2
Respondent No.3
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
