motor accident, - an auto bearing No.AP15-V-80 came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the scooter. As a result, he fell down and sustained fracture injuries to right leg apart from other injuries. He took treatment in Nizam Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad under various spells. His right patella came to be removed and he underwent operation to his fracture injuries. Due to the fracture injuries, his right leg is shortened by two inches. He was medically found to be unfit to discharge duties as underground Trammer. He came to be disengaged by the employer and thereby; he lost his total earnings. He filed O.P.No.251 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.7,92,500/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offended vehicle.-Thus, in all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation under various heads as shown hereunder: Pain and suffering Rs. 20,000=00 Loss of future earnings Rs.3,12,000=00 Loss of past earnings Rs. 65,000=00 Medical expenses Rs.2,00,000=00 Transportation Rs. 15,000=00 Attendant expenses Rs. 10,000=00 Extra Nourishment Rs. 15,000=00 Total: Rs.6,37,000=00 In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,37,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.1,37,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. No costs.


THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY          

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.4403 of 2003

23.08.2012

Kanche Chandraiah @ Kusala Satyanaran Reddy    

Jaissingani Chandan and others

Counsel for the Appellant: Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy

Counsel for 3rd Respondent: Smt.M.Bhaskar Lakshmi  

<Gist :

>Head Note:

? Cases referred:

JUDGMENT:  

        Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted in O.P.No.251 of
2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, at
Karimnagar, the claimant has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2.      Facts, in brief, are:-
        The appellant is the claimant in O.P.No.251 of 2000 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal-District Judge, Karimnagar ("the Tribunal", in short).
He was Underground Trammer in 6-B Incline of Singareni Collieries Company
Limited, Godavarikhani and was earning Rs.5,364/- per month. On 25.01.2009 at
about 9 P.M., he was proceeding on a scooter as a pillion rider along with his
friend Srinivas from Food Corporation of India Cross Road to his native place
Veeralapalli and on reaching the outskirts of Kazipalli village, an auto bearing
No.AP15-V-80 came in the opposite direction driven in a rash and negligent
manner and dashed the scooter.  As a result, he fell down and sustained fracture
injuries to right leg apart from other injuries.   He took treatment in Nizam
Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad under various spells.  His right
patella came to be removed and he underwent operation to his fracture injuries.
Due to the fracture injuries, his right leg is shortened by two inches.   He was
medically found to be unfit to discharge duties as underground Trammer.  He came
to be disengaged by the employer and thereby; he lost his total earnings. He
filed O.P.No.251 of 2000 claiming compensation of Rs.7,92,500/- against the
driver, owner and insurer of the offended  vehicle.

3.      Before the Tribunal, the driver and the owner remained         ex parte.
The insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the claimant.  The insurer
denied the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.  The insurer
also pleaded that the quantum of amount claimed by the claimant is excessive and
exorbitant.  The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:-
1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the
Auto Rickshaw bearing No.     AP-15-V-80 by its driver?
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation and if so to what
amount and from whom?  
3. To what relief?

On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining
three more witnesses as PWs.2 to 4 and got marked 15 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-  
13 and Exs.C-1 and C-2.  The insurer examined one witness as RW-1 and marked  
copy of the insurance policy as Ex.B-1.  The Tribunal, on considering the
evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties,
came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and
negligent driving of the driver of the auto and thereby, proceeded to award
compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-, by order dated 25.8.2003.

4.      Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant has filed this
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

5.      Heard Sri A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
claimant and learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-insurer.

6.      It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-
claimant that the appellant-claimant was aged 47 years as on the date of trial
and therefore, proper multiplier for arriving at the future loss of earnings, as
per the decision in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation1 is thirteen.
But the Tribunal adopted multiplier "9" and therefore, the future loss of
earnings of the appellant-claimant are to be arrived at by applying "13"
multiplier instead of multiplier "9".  It is also contended by him that the
Tribunal having noted the period of hospitalization of the petitioner on
different spells has not granted fair compensation towards loss of past
earnings.   In a way, his contention is the Tribunal has awarded Rs.24,000/-
towards loss of past earnings without taking into consideration  the period of
hospitalization.  It is also contended by the learned counsel   that the quantum
of amount allowed to the appellant-claimant towards pain and suffering is not
commensurate with the injuries sustained by the appellant-claimant in the
accident.   In nutshell, the contention of the learned counsel is that the
quantum of amount as claimed by the appellant-claimant deserves to be allowed.
Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in
R.D.Hattangadi v. Pest Control  (India) Pvt. Ltd2 in support of his contentions.

7.      Learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent-insurer  submits that the
appellant-claimant  was in hospital for about 133 days in different spells  and
therefore, the quantum of amount  allowed by the Tribunal  towards  loss of past
earnings  is fair and proper compensation  and the same is not required to be
enhanced.

8.      The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the appellant-claimant made out any valid ground for enhancement of the
compensation?

9.      POINT : In the matter of determination of compensation,  both the    
Tribunal and the Court are statutorily  charged  with a responsibility  of
fixing a "just compensation".  It is obviously true that determination of a just
compensation cannot be equated to a bonanza.  At the same time the concept of
"just compensation" obviously suggests application of fair and equitable
principles and a reasonable approach on the part of the tribunals and the
courts.  This reasonableness on the part of the tribunal and the court must be
on a large peripheral field. Both the courts and the tribunals in the matter of
this exercise should be guided by principles of good conscience so that the
ultimate  result becomes just and equitable.  The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar
v.  Ram Singh Gaud3 applied the multiplier method for calculation of
compensation in case of injury for loss of future earnings.  The same principle
was recognized by the Supreme Court in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar v. Murad Shaikh4.

10.     The appellant-claimant claimed the following amount  under various heads:-
Special Damages
a)
Loss of earning from 25-1-99 to 30-4-2000
:
Rs.90,000=00
b)
Transport to Hospital
:
Rs.20,000=00
c)
Extra Nourishment & Medicines and two attendants
:
Rs.2,57,000=00
d)
Damages to clothing and articles etc.
:
Rs.500=00
General Damages:
a)
Compensation for pain and suffering
:
Rs.25,000=00
b)
Compensation of loss of earning power
:
Rs.4,00,000=00
Total
:
Rs.7,92,500=00

11.     The Tribunal awarded the following amounts under various heads:-
Pain and suffering
  Rs.   20,000=00
Present value of the future loss
  Rs.2,16,000=00
Past loss
  Rs.   24,000=00
Medicines & Treatment
  Rs.2,00,000=00
Transportation
  Rs.  15,000=00
Attendant's expenses
  Rs.  10,000=00
Extra Nourishment
  Rs.  15,000=00
Total:  Rs.5,00,000=00

12.     As seen from the evidence of Pws.2 and 4 who treated the appellant-
claimant, the appellant-claimant sustained fracture of both bones and femur of
right leg, and right kneecap also came to be removed.  The Medical Board
assessed the physical disability at 40%.  PW.3 is the Clerk in Singareni
Collieries Company Limited. He speaks of the earnings of the appellant-claimant.
The evidence of Pw.3 shows that the appellant-claimant was engaged as daily
wageworker and his earnings depend upon the work turned out by him on each day.
The Tribunal on consideration of the various factors taken the monthly earnings
of the appellant at Rs.5,000/-.  I do not see any error in the method adopted by
the Tribunal in arriving at the monthly earnings of the appellant-claimant.
The appellant-claimant took the treatment for about thirteen months on different
spells and the same has been established by the Discharge Summaries issued by
NIMS, which have been exhibited as Ex.A-9.  The Tribunal granted   Rs.24,000/-
towards loss of  past earnings.  In my considered view, the appellant-claimant
is entitled to Rs.65,000/- towards loss of past earning (Rs.5,000/-X 13=
Rs.65,000/-).  Thus, the amount of Rs.24,000/-  awarded towards past earnings is
enhanced  to Rs.65,000/-.

13.     Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-claimant by placing reliance
on R.D.Hattangadi's case (2nd supra) submit that an amount of Rs.20,000/-
awarded  by the Tribunal  towards pain and suffering  is required to be enhanced
to at least   Rs.1,50,000/-.  In the cited decision, the injured was a
practicing advocate and he became immobilized due to the injuries received by
him in the accident.  Such is not the situation in the case on hand.  Therefore,
the cited case is of no avail to the appellant-claimant.

14.     The appellant-claimant was aged 47 years as on the date of his evidence.
In case of injured, the proper multiplier has to be arrived at taking his age as
on the date of his examination before the Tribunal as a witness.  As per the
Sarla Verma's case (1 supra), the proper multiplier to be adopted for the person
aged 47 years is thirteen.   Accordingly, the total loss of future earnings by
applying the multiplier of "13", comes to Rs.3,12,000/-.  Therefore, the amount
of Rs.2,16,000/-  awarded  by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings is required
to be enhanced  to Rs.3,12,000/-.  The quantum of amount with regard to the
compensation awarded by the Tribunal on other accounts does not warrant
interference. Thus, in all, the appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation
under various heads as shown hereunder: 
Pain and suffering
Rs.   20,000=00 
Loss of future earnings
Rs.3,12,000=00 
Loss of past earnings
Rs.   65,000=00 
Medical expenses  
Rs.2,00,000=00 
Transportation
Rs.   15,000=00 
Attendant expenses 
Rs.   10,000=00 
Extra Nourishment 
Rs.   15,000=00 
Total:  Rs.6,37,000=00

15.     In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing
the compensation from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.6,37,000/-.  The enhanced compensation  
of Rs.1,37,000/- shall carry interest  at 6% per annum from the date of the
petition till the date of payment.  No costs.
_____________________  
B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J      
Dt.23-08-2012

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.