Partly allowed

Mohd Afzal v. M/S.P.S.C.Bose Automobiles and Anr.

Telangana HC2 Mar 2023MACMA/2274/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order, enhancing the compensation for a partially disabled claimant by revising the calculation of future loss based on age-appropriate multipliers and correct income assumptions under Motor Vehicles Act jurisprudence.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,20,500 to Rs.4,05,760 with interest at 7.5% p.a.; Respondent directed to deposit amount within eight weeks.

Mohd Afzal Vs M/S.P.S.C.Bose Automobiles and Anr. — Motor Accident Claims | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

AT HYDERABAD

¶4

THURSDAY ,THE SECOND DAY OF N/IARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NO: 227 4 OF 2009

¶7

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and Decree dt 1'110312008 in O.P.No. 141012003 on the file of the Motgor Accident claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional district Judge) at Nizamabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

MOHD AFZAL, S/o.late Mohd Moulana Retd Field Assistant,Mitk Chilling Centre,Agricultrue pattedar R/o.Medak. Now R/o.R.B.Nagar, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND

¶10

M/S.P.S.C.BOSE AUTOMOBILES O/o,D.No.54-7-75btB, 3rd Road, JA Nagar, Vijayawada,Krishna District.

¶11

Branch Manager, The National lnsurance Company Ltd O/o.PB No.751, D.Nd.38-8-17, Opp.Air Bandar Road, Vijayawada.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶13

Counsel for the Appellant :SRl. CH JANARDHAN REDDY

¶14

Counsel for the Respondents :SMT. P. SATYA MANJULA

¶15

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶16

I IoN I]I,E SM-T. ,ITJS'I'IC]E LALT'I H.{ I(. \NNI:(;,4,N-I'I

¶17

M.A.Cl.M.A. No.2274 ol' 20 )t)

¶18

J[,D(iMI-T t

¶19

'I irr-s a ri,ciri is plelbrrcd b1, the clainrant/a[, )cl]arlt aggricved b1, the.irrclr.lnr,'r' irnLl dccTCe datcd I1.03.2008 1 passt.:l irro.l).No. l,ll0 of 200] .. ii- lllc ol the Molor Accide;rl cririrrs Tribu,al (vIlI Addiri.'rrrl [ 'irrtr.ict Judge) At Nizamabad (ftrr ;lrort, .lhe 1'ritrunal') sceking cnirr^'ri entent of the cornpensation.

¶20

l'lrc rr :t' I:rcts .1' the casc are that orl 13.().i.100i, the clairnant along u ith h s brother were going on scooler ar rj at g.30 p.r-n. when thel' rcr clr-'rr rreirr' (lanesh Iticc Milr, a lorry t,,.'lorrgi,g to the r.r respo.rl.'.r ci ,-c at rriglr speccr and dashed agarns. ,he scooter arrd as a rcsull. botl I rl rlown and sustained injuries anc lhc./ were taken to Goverrrr.rrcr l l,)spital, Medak, lbr medical treatrnirnt. I.he claimant u,as adrrirtr:c1 a:; inpaticnt 1.rom 14.042003 L(,23.C,t 2013 and his right Ieg was r,rpr tared tbr ivhich he spent Rs.2,00,0C0, _ trwards mcdical lreatme'r ' ll :lore thc accide.t, the craimant r,v,rs d.ing curtivation over ..\c.l.(_ 0 a,_'res ol' rvet land. It is alsc, stat,)(l tf at his leg rvas a,putalcrl abr i,r: the k.ee and he has sustained 609i, disabilirv.

¶21

-) l'h r 1 ' 1 3-.p<rndcnl remainccl ex porte before lrc^.l.ribunal. Tl.re

¶22

¶23

¶24

2"d respondent filed counter denying al the allcgations as to the occurrence of the accident and disputed the clairn of the claimant^for conlpensatron.

¶25

On behalf of the claimant, PWs.l to 3 were examined and^got marked Exs.A. I to A.9 and Exs.C.l and C.2. On behalf of the Insurance Company, no oral evidence was adduced but Ex.B.l copy of policy was marked.

¶26

The Tribunal on analyzing the evidence held that the accident was on account of the negligent driving on thc part of the driver of the lorry and awarded an amount of Rs.¹ ,20,500/- with interest at^{7 .5Yt per} annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

¶27

Sri Ch.Janardhan Reddy, leamed counsel for the^appellant- claimant, submits that when the age of the claimant is 60^{years, the} multiplier that was applied by the Tribunal is^{'5', where '9' appliesto} the case of the claimant. Further, the Tribunal^{has taken the incomeof} the injured at Rs.3,000/- per month. [n view of the^{law laid by the} ln Hon'ble Apex Court Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal

¶28

¶29

Sundaranr \lli:rncer. uirercin thc monthly irrcorr, of the agricr.iltural Iabour,:r rrr {,.+.500r- ..r'as taken in the abser-rct .rl evicicncc, as such, the l'rirrun.r ('llqhr 1() Irave taken the said arnoLmi ntc consideration. lt is statci tlrl ihc clnirrranl is completely disabled :,rd the compensation of an urnr'rr i .!' Rs. 1,20,500/- granted against rlr,.. claimed amount ol Its.6,0(..0()tI - is a vcrv rneager amount. ,\s sucrr r, the ciaimant flled this ap1-,c3i r; rckirrg cnlrancernent of the corrpensiLlion

¶30

Smt.l'. i: tya Manjula, Iearned corrnsel lor the Insurance Comp,rn . r bnr its th.t thc^'f ribunal basinlr on Ir,: nraterial available orr rccord ar I ctrnsiclc|ing the income of the pe ti -ioner :rt Rs.3,000/has rightiy' g arrlr:d the cornpensation. It is r;ubm.lt,:d thar the claimant with.ut .* ) ' 'idcrlce, is claiming a compensalior.f 1ts.6.00,000i-. It is statcci tha t rrr this appeal also the claimant cot ( I n,)t make out any grounds ser:li n1; cnhancement of the compensation.

¶31

I Ie a'cl I a.red c.rrnsel o. either side arrd pe.,r lec the material on lecorci.

¶32

'fhcre i n. dispute about the fact rhat i.r ttLe accident the '^{(2O111 l3 SCI(l 2 iil}

¶33

¶34

claimant has sustained injuries and his leg was amputated and it amounts to 60oh disability. Then coming to thc income, the Tribunal has cousidered the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000 l- p.m. as he was cultivating over Ac.3.00 of land. This Court feels it appropriate to apply the ratio in Ramachandrappa's case as stated supra and is inclined to take the income of the claimant as Rs.4,500/- and as his age was 60 years, as per the judgment of the l{on'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others2, the future prospects applicable is 10%, then thc rnonthly incomc would be Rs.4950/- (Rs.4,500 x l0.o/o: Rs.450/-). It is an undisputed fact that the age of the claimant was 60 years at the time of accideni and the multiplier that applied is '9', it comes to Rs.4,950/- x 12 x 9 - Rs.5,34,600/- and as the claimant sustained 60% disability, it would come to Rs.3,20,760l-. For the attendant charge, as the claimant's leg was amputated, he is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/-. Apart from that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.10,000/-

towards transport.

, (2017) 16 SCC 680

l.earrr rc Ct-\unsr.'l Iirl tirc appellant/,:lain1.lr't ltas ;elied on tl-re judgr.r'rr:nt I a jsed br tire Hon'ble Apex Cc rrt in V.Mekala v M.Malallni :rncl anotltcrr. r.vherein the Aper: Cotrrl. taking^into consicl,-'ralr< n!.he dir(r'ol tlre accident ancl lill thr:^{,rppeal t'eachedto the} Apex C'orrr h:rs au arrlccl a sum of Rl;.25,C 0t)/- tou ards cost of litigati,rn. [ :rrce, ar] irror.rnt ol Rs.10,000/- is arlardt:d towards cost of lit igat io n

¶39

I 1. I lencr , this C'orrrt is inclined to grant cctrpensation under the followi ng )r a ls

¶40

ParticLrlnrs		It.m(	)un1awardedby this Court
l-ossolti.t^r.: 'e incou-rctltrctodisability		lls.	3,20,7600/-
I'ainandl;u Icring		Il-s.	25.000/-
Transpon		[ts.	10,000/-
Atten(iirntc a'ges		Fis.	20,000/-
E,xtrarrotrris 1rnent		Fis.	10,000/-
Transpo11		Fis.	10,000/-
[.itigationcl 2t,.gcS		Fls.	10,000/-
	Total	Rrs.	4,05,7601-

¶41

t I

¶42

3 2074 (5) At.l) 4 [:]CJ

¶43

¶44

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the

¶45

compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs.1,20,500/- to Rs.4,05,760i- (Rupees lour lakhs fire thousand seven hundred and sixty only) as hereunder

¶46

(a) The enhanced amount shalI carry interest at 7.5o/o p.a. lrom thc date of petition till the date of realization.

¶47

(b) The Insurance Company shall deposit the amounr within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶48

¶49

Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶50

Sd/. G. SIREESHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// qD

¶51

SECTION OFFICER

¶52

To,

¶53

The Motor ACCIDENT Claims Tribunal (Vlll Additional district Judge) at Nizamabad (with records if any)

¶54

¶55

One CC o SRI CH JANARDHAN REDDY Adv:,r:ate tOpUCl

¶56

One CC 1o llylT P. SATYA IVANJULA, Advocatt: [OITUC]

¶57

Two CD ()c ties

\ TL \ >-

kam

, I

HIGH COURT

DATED:0210312023

JUDGMENT & T)E ]IiEE

,<
,a.' .. -,' .i.
tl..'
11 ,|j lul

¶67

MAGMA.No.2274 tf 2009

¶68

ALLOWING THE: l<sup>I.r.C.M.A.

¶69

¶70

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶71

THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH

¶72

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶73

PRESENT

¶74

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTIGE LALITHA KANNEGANTI M.A.C.M.A.NO:2274 OF 2009

¶75

Between:

¶76

MoHD AFZAL, S/o.late Mohd Moulana Retd Fietd Assistant,Milk chiiling Centre,Agricultrue patted R/o.tVedak. Now R/o.R.B.Nagar, Kamareddy, Nizamabad District.

¶77

...APPELLANT/PETITIONER

¶78

AND

¶79

M/S.P.S.C.BOSE AUTOtvtOBtLES O/o.D.No.54-7-75btB, 3rd Road, JA Nagar, Vijayawada,Krishna District.

¶80

2.^,Branch Manager, The National lnsurance Company Ltd O/o.P.B. No.751, D.No.38-8-'17, Opp.Air Bandar Road, Vijayawada.

¶81

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶82

Appeal Under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the Order and Decree dt 1110312008 in O.P.No. 141O|2OO3 on the file of the Motor Accident claims _Tribunal (Vlll Additional district Judge) at Nizamabad.

¶83

This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Cou( and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri CH. JANARDHAN REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SMT. p.

¶84

SATYA IVIANJLlL, ', Advocate for the Responderrts a:(: tlris Court doth Judgment arrd rie :rr)e as follows:-

¶85

1. That the a1 p:al be and hereby is partly allorvt:d rnodifying the Order ciat,:d 11lO3l2OO8 passed by the Tribunal,

¶86

1. That the c< npensation amount be and hereL,'l erhanced from Rs.1,20,5110 - to Rs 4,05,7AU- (Rupees [:our Lakhs Five Thousand S:ven hundred and Sixty only) with irrterest at the rate of 7.Sot'o pe ilnnum on the enhanced arlounl^,:lf r;ompensation from the dat r^r>f petition till the date of reali;:ation.

¶87

1. That the lnturance Company be and herr:by cirr:cted to deposit the am,:unt vithin a period of eight weeks 'rom :h= date of receipt of acopyof h=judgment.

¶88