Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Al iance Insurance Company Ltd

2.1. It is contended in the claim petition that on 05.05.2005 in the late hours, the petitioner and his friend by name Krishna were going towards Kaman at Karimnagar on TVS Victor bearing No.Ap-15-N-816 driven by the petitioner, when they reached opposlte to Kalabharathi at about 12.30 night, respondent No.1 was driving Bajaj Auto Trolley/pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 with load of vegetables in high speed. The driver of the Bajaj Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner due to which he fell down on the road. The petitioner was shifted to Government Hospital, Karimnagar from there to Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences and operation was conducted by two Doctors on right thigh and external fixtures were fixed, he was discharged on 23.05.2005. petitioner was again admitted in the said Hospital on 01.07.2005, underwent another operation and external fixtures were removed and plaster of paris was applied for 45 days to his right leg, he was discharged on O4.O7.2005. After six weeks, the plaster of paris was removed and Doctors advised the petitioner for further bed rest. .\ 218 I]RMR,J M.ACt\rA 61 2022 a. \'.\.t:*. \(

2.2. Petitioner took bed rest for one year, he suffere:d knee stiffness due to fracture of right leg and moved with a walker and he also took treatment at KIIYS Hospital, Secunderabad as oui-patient. The petitioner was hale and healthy and unmarried prior to the accident, aged about 25 years, he was active in business by running a Tea stall and Bakery and used to earn Rs.6,000/- per mont1. Due to the fracture of his nght leg, he was unable to bend his leg and his movements became stiff and his leg is shortened. Tht: injury resulted permanent disability of 600/o in the right knee which is certified by the luledical Board. Petitioner has to undergo operation fo- skin grafting and it requires Rs.50,000/-, surgery for removal of irnplants which requires Rs.30,000/-. In total the petitioner has claimr:d an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3. Respondent No.1 is set ex parte before the Tribunarl.

4. Respondent No.2 filed counter denying the all,3qations of the claim petitioner. Respondent No.1 was driving his vehicle in a normal speed and was on the left side. The rider of the motor.cycle drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the Ar-to and there is no negligence on the part of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is having valid driving license and respondent No.3 is liable to pay the compensation.

5. Respondent No.3 filed counter and contended that the accident might havp taken place due to the negligence on the p.rr: of the.driver .._'..,dG|l,"f..+t// a,-* " jr,/ -../ 318 BRMR,J MACMA 6I 2022 of the ryS Victor as there was no collusion between the two vehicles, the compensation if granted may be restricted to the extent of negligence on the part of the Auto Trolley pick up Van. The owner of the vehicle has not informed respondent No.3 about the accident. The compensation claimed is high and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the same.

6. The Tribunal has framed the following issues 1 2 3 Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending motor vehicle i.e., Bajaj Auto trolley/Pick up Van bearing No.AP-15-W-8987 driven by its d river? Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, at what amount and from whom? To What relief.:

7. Claimant is examined as PW.1, also examined PWs.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.A1 to A16. On behalf of respondents, RW.1 and RW.2 are examined, Exs.B1 and 82 are marked.

8. The Trial Court after conclusion of the evidence has allowed the claim petition in part against respondent Nos.1 to 3 granting compensation of Rs.3.69,540/- (Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges + Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.52,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.t0,500/- towards loss of income for 3 1/2 months + \ Rs.2,57,O40 I - towards permanent partial disability). \ I]RMR,J MACN,IA rr I 2022

9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that :l-,e Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation to the appellant and did not consider the fact ahat the appellant has sustained injurie:s and suffered 60o/o disability and the permanent disability to the tunc: cf 60o/o and he lost his total ear-nings. The Tribunal ought to ha,re taken 100o/o disability and wrongly applied the multiplier as '17' instead of '15'. Counsel further submits that the Tribunal has takr:rr the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month, which ought to have taken the income at Rs.5,000/- as pleaded and awarded less amount for partial loss of earning as the appellant has undergo're treatment for one year. The Tribunal has taken the age of tlr€ appellant as 30 years and as per the Secondary School certifir:ate his age is 32 years and relied on the decisions in the cases of (1) Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Al iance Insurance Company Ltd.1 (2) Pappu deo Yadav Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others2.

10. Notice to respondent No.1 is served but he failed to appear.

11. No argument is advanced by respondent No.2.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that accldent has taken place in the year 2005 and the Tribunal has rightly arrived that the income of the appellant is Rs.3,0O0/- and the disability is also taken as 30o/o which is correct, in support of his conten:ion he rglied on I 'zort 1t:1 scc zlo ' lzozz; t: scc zso s/8 BRMR,J MACMA 61 2022 the decision in the case of T.l. Pa rameshwa ra ppa Vs. The Branch Manager New India Assurance Company Limited and Others3.

13. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record

14. Now the point for consideration is whether the award passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable, if so, does it require any modification?

15. Accident has taken place on 05.05.2005, as per the evidence of the claimant he was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by running a Tea stall and a Bakery. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant as Rs.3,000/- per month. In Ra machand ra ppa's case', the Apex Court has taken the income of the coolie as Rs.4,500/-. This Court is of the view that by running a Tea stall, appellant will be earning at least Rs.4,000/- per month but the Tribunal has roughly fixed the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/-.

16. PW.2 is Deputy Medical Superintendant of Prathima Institute of Medical Sciences, Karimnagar and he gave evidence that the appellant was treated in the Hospital and surgeries were done, patient was bed ridden from 05.05.2005 to 04.07.2OO5. Patient was advised to take bed rest for one and half month after discharge i.e., 04.O-1.2OO5. 3 (2022) 17 scc 51 tI WB'&tt t' -' ': \t.::,., .,.i: i !.iV \: \.. \' 618 BRMR,J MACI\,IA 61 2022

17. PW.3 worked as the Civil Assistant Surgeon i:.) Government Hospital, Karimnagar, he deposed that he examined th3 appellant. who is suffering from postraumatic stiffness of right knee ard right hip with shortening of right lower limb i.e., there may be shortening about the knee or below the knee and his disability was decided as 600/0 as it is permanent partial disability and he issued Ex.A11 certificate. In his cross-exa min ation, he deposed that it is mentioned in Ex.411 that it is not valid for judicial purpose and he examined the petitioner in the It4edical camp in which several patients have attended, he did not obtain any X-Ray and he admitted that there is no arnputation to the right leg of the petitioner and he can attend to any work that can be done by a person by sitting in a chair. Witness adds that he cannot do it completely as a normal person.

18. The Apex Court in Pappu Deo's case2, observed that the Couft should not adopt a stereo typical or myopic approach while assessing the disability.

19. In T.J.Parameshwarappa's case3, the Apex Couft has laid down the parameters for assessment of future loss of earnings due to permanent disa bility.

20. PW.3 who issued Ex.A11 certificate admitted that it is not helpful i for ju&cial purpose as the appellant was suffering fronr postraumatic stifFness of right knee and right hip with shortening of right lower limb. The Tribunal having considered the evidence of PW.3 coupled with w 718 DRMR,J MACMA 6I 2022 Ex.A11 has rightly assessed the percentage of disability of the appellant at 30o/o which is appropriate and correct to arrive at a just compensation. Age of the appellant is mentioned as 30 years in the claim petition and the dppropriate multiplier is'17'.

21. The determination of compensation is as under: Sl. No Name of the Head Amount awarded 1 2 .) 4 5 6 7 8 9 Monthly Income Rs.4,000/- Add 4Oo/o future prospects as per Pranay Sethi's case Annual income Rs.5,600/- (4Oo/o of 4,000 = 1,600 + 4,000) Rs.67,2OO/- (s,600 x 12) Multiplier'17' as per Sarla Varma's case Rs.ll,42,40O/ - (67,2OO x 17) For Disability Loss of income for a period of 3 Yz months @ Rs.4,000/- p.m. Rs.3,42,720/- (77 ,42,400 x 3oo/o) Rs.14,000/- Transportation charges Rs.10,000/- Medical Expenses Rs.52,000/- Pain and Suffering Rs.40,000/-

10. Extra Nourishment Rs.10,000/- 11 Attendant charges Rs. 10,000/- Total Rs.4,78,720/- t ( I] RMII,.J N{ACNfA a,l 2022 \€*k tlBfi \ -fira -

22. The above said amount shall carry interest @ 9'70 per annum in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Anjali and Others Vs. Lokend ra Rathod and Othersa.

23. The Appeal is allowed in Part 1 2 3 The impugned award dated 17.O7.2079 passed in M.V.O.P.No.899 of 2012 by the III Additional District Judge (Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal) at Kanmnagar stands modified. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs.3,69,540/- is hereby enhanced to Rs.4,78,720l- together witr interest @ 9olo P.A. from t1e date of filing claim petition till payment. The respondents are hereby directed to deposit the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest ancj costs, less the amount already deposited if any within a perioo of 60 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this Judgment. 4 Appellant is permitted to withdraw the entire anrount. Miscellaneous application/s, pending if any, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// Sd/- MOHD ISMAIL qEPUTY REGISTRAR \ t I SECTION OFFICER To, '1 . The Chairman lvlotor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll ,\dditional District Judge, Karimnagar.

2. One CC to SRl. MAHBOOB HUSSAIN Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRI SURYA SATISH Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI RAMA KRISHNA MALLOJHALA Advocare [OpUC] 7 5. Two CD Copies v SS HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 JUDGMENT MACMA.No.61 of 2022 \l x if;.J ': .-; l:.i t! - ', 11, a '.'..)' ,_ PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS 7 /,r. b .1/2 /42 J '.- t i:. , r\fl',l ?{6 i;!j t\ rrL' .j .iJ - ''. .,,/ ): "7 't':1 -'71' ' ...-..:i_.,,,: ..,.,!\-,, '-:-':.-j"' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA FRIDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 6'l OF 2022 Between: Duddela Prashanth, Prashanth Kumar, S/o.Venkataswamy, Age.30 years, Occ Business, R/o. H.No.2-3-188, Kaman Road, Karimnagar proper and Distric ...APPELLANT AND

4. Kankanala Venkat Ramreddy, Venkat Reddy, S/o. Laxma Reddy, aged 33 years, Occ. Driver of Bajaj AutoTrolley/Pickup Van bearing No. AP'15W8987, R/o.Gattubuthkur v/o. Gangadhara mandal in Karimnagar District.

5. P. Srinivas, S/o. Narayana, aged Not known to the petitioner but major, Occ. Owner of Bajaj Auto Trolley/Pickup Van bearing No. AP15W8987, R/o. H.No.6-3- 105/1(old H,No.9-1-136(new), Nehru nagar of Sircilla town and mandal in Karimnagar District.

6. The United lndia lnsurance Co Ltd, by its Branchmanager, Rl/o. H.No.2-8-186, I Floor, Mukarampura locality of Karimnagar Diskict. ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act against the Order and decree in M.V.O-P No.899 of 2012 daled 17 .01.2019 on the file of the Court of the Chairman lt4otor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Lower Court and the material papers in the Case and upon hearing the arguments of SRI L DAYAKAR REDDY, Advocate for the Appellant and of SRI SURYA SATISH, Advocate for the Respondent No.2 , and of SRI RAMA KRISHNA MALLOJHALA, Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and none appeared for Respondent No.1 . This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the lvlACMA be and hereby is partly allowed by modifying the impugned award dated 17.01 .2019 passed in M.V.O.P No.899 of 2012 by lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar .

2. That the compensation awarded by the tribunal at Rs. 3,69,5401 be and hereby enhanced to Rs.4,78,720l- together with interest @ 9o/' p.a. from the date of filing claim petition till payment.

3. That the Respondents be and hereby directed to shall deposit the the awarded amount jointly and severally with interest and costs, less the amount already deposited if any within a period of 60days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this judgment.

4. That the appe lant be and hereby is permitted to withdraw.the entire 5. That save as aforesaid, the decree of the tribunal sha stands confirmed in all 6. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. olher respects, and //TRUE COPY// Sd/. MOHD ISMAIL DEPUTY REGISTRAR [\; ON OFFICER To, 1 2 The Chairman Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-lll Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. Two CD Copies HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 DECREE MACMA.No.61 of 2022 PARTLY ALLOWING THE MACMA WITHOUT COSTS ? /,4 /,2-,zzr