NAMMI BALAKRISHNA v. ROMALA NOOKARAJU

Introductory:

Claimant in M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Family Court-cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vizianagaram (for short “the learned MACT”), feeling aggrieved by the order and decree dated 08.10.2009 passed therein, filed the present appeal. As against the claim made for Rs.1,20,000/-, the learned MACT awarded Rs.47,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, making both the respondents liable to pay the same.

Respondent No.1 is the owner of the Mini Lorry bearing No.AP 35 T 8531 (hereinafter referred to as “the offending vehicle”).

Respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle is insured.

For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as the petitioner/claimant and the respondents, as and how they are arrayed before the learned MACT. Case of the claimant:

On 04.07.2005, the petitioner, being the driver of the offending vehicle, while driving the same from Alamanda Shandy towards Kothavalasa side, near Addannapalem Village, suddenly a cyclist came across the road, to avert hitting the cyclist, sudden brakes were applied, whereby the 4 accident occurred and he sustained injuries all over the body. After the accident, he was shifted to Kothavalasa Government Hospital. From there, he was shifted to K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, where he took treatment. As on the date of the accident, the petitioner was aged about 20 years and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as driver of the lorry, apart from other benefits. Due to the accident, he suffered injuries and permanent disability.

A case in Crime No.93 of 2006 was registered for the offences under Sections 337and 338 of IPC.

Respondent No.1, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte before the learned MACT. Case of respondent No.2 / Insurance Company:

The petitioner shall prove the accident and his capacity as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time, valid and effective driving licence and subsistence of the same, issuance of the policy by respondent No.2 and its coverage in respect of the offending vehicle. Evidence:

The petitioner has taken witness stand as P.W.1 and Dr. B. Udaya Kumar, Civil Surgeon (Orthopedic), K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam was examined as P.W.2. Petitioner has further relied on Ex.A1-FIR, Ex.A2- wound certificate, Ex.A3-charge sheet, Ex.A4-M.V.I. Report, Ex.A5-O.P. Chit issued by K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam, Ex.A6-driving licence, Ex.A7- disability certificate, Ex.A8-latest Photograph and Ex.X1-Case sheet. 5 Findings of the learned MACT:

By referring to the crime record and the evidence of P.W.1, the learned MACT believed the accident, negligence and involvement of the offending vehicle. By referring to the evidence of the petitioner, doctor, wound certificate, disability certificate, etc. and Ex.X1-case sheet indicating the treatment for one month at King George Hospital, Visakhapatnam and Ex.A8-photograph indicating the crush injury, the learned MACT awarded compensation of Rs.47,000/- in all. Contending that the compensation awarded is low, the present appeal is filed. Arguments in the appeal: For the appellant: 11(i). The learned MACT failed to take note earnings of the petitioner as driver. (ii). The learned MACT failed to note the disability at 20% assessed by the Medical Board. (iii) The compensation awarded under the various heads is very low. For the respondents: 12(i). The compensation already awarded is excessive. (ii). The petitioner himself is negligent, therefore, he cannot advantage of his own wrong.

Heard both sides. Perused the record. Thoughtful consideration is given to the arguments advanced by both sides. Scope of appeal: 6

This is an appeal filed by the claimants, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. There is no appeal or cross-appeal by the Insurance Company. There was another victim in the accident who was travelling in the offending vehicle. He is the informant and was cited as L.W.1 and the petitioner herein was cited as the accused. Petitioner’s role as an accused is different, but since he met with an accident in the course of employment, his claim for compensation and entitlement thereto need not be doubted. They are all out of scope. Therefore, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and the liability of the respondents are clear. Hence, the scope of the appeal is limited to examining the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled.

The points that arise for determination in this appeal are: 1) Whether the compensation of Rs.47,000/- awarded by the learned MACT under impugned judgment dated 08.10.2009 M.V.O.P.No.576 of 2006 is just and reasonable or requires any interference? If so, on what grounds and to which extent? 2) What is the result of the appeal? Point No.1: Precedential Guidance:

A reference to parameters, for quantifying the compensation under various heads, addressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court is found necessary, to 7 have standard base in the process of quantifying the compensation, to which the claimant is entitled. (i) With regard to awarding just and reasonable quantum of compensation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baby Sakshi Greola vs. Manzoor Ahmad Simon and Anr.1, arising out of SLP(c).No.10996 of 2018 on 11.12.2024, considered the scope and powers of the Tribunal in awarding just and compensation within the meaning of Act, after marshaling entire case law, more particularly with reference to the earlier observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court made in Kajal V. Jagadish Chand and Ors.2, referred to various heads under which, compensation can be awarded, in injuries cases vide paragraph No.52, the heads are as follows:- S. No. Head Amount (In ₹)

1. Medicines and Medical Treatment 2. Loss of Earning Capacity due to Disability 3. Pain and Suffering 4. Future Treatment 5. Attendant Charges 6. Loss of Amenities of Life 7. Loss of Future Prospect 8. Special Education Expenditure 9. Conveyance and Special Diet 10. Loss of Marriage Prospects xxxxxx _________ Total Rs. … xxxxxx _________ (ii). Hon’ble Apex Court in Yadava Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and Anr.,3 vide para No.10, by referring to Sunil Kumar Vs. Ram Singh Gaud4, as to application of multiplier method in case of injuries while calculating loss of future