Smt. L. Laxmi Wo. Chandru v. '1. M Durga Goud Allipuram S/o. Anja Goud

Judgment

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE M.G.PRIYADARSINI JUDGMENT: M.A.C.M.A.N0.3129 OF 2016

1. Dissatished with the compensation awarded by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.V.O.P.No.1736 of 2013, dated 18.O4.2016, the claimant /injured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation amount.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are that initiaily, thc petitioner/ injured filed a petition under Section 766 of M.V.Act, 1988 and Rule 455 of A.P.M.V.Rules, 1989 r/w. Section 14O(c) of M.V.Act, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,00O / - for the injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on

11.03.2013. It is stated by the petitioner that on 11.03.2O13, at about 1.00 p.m., when the petitioner/injured was travelling in Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-23Y-3930 along with Tomato .loacl and when the said Auto reached at Gandimaisamma X Roads, the driver of one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28-TV-O616 drove the said vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed the Auto Trolley in which the petitioner/ injured was travelling. As a result, 2 MGP'.1 MACMA-N9.3129 o12076 the petitioner sustained Head injury, blunt injury to chest and pelvis, fracture ribs 3, 4 and 5 (right) fracture of scapula (right), fracture of Rami (right), which are grievous in nature and other multiple injuries all over the body and incurred an amount of Rs.2,50,000/ - towards medical expenses

4. Based on a compiaint, Police of Dundigal Police Station registered a case in Crime No. 186 of 2Ol3 under Sections 304-4, and 337 of IPC against the driver of crime Auto

5. It is stated by the petitioner/injured that she was So'years old at the time of accident and used to earn Rs.9,00O/- per month as a Vegetable Vendor. Due to the injuries sustained by her in the alleged accident, she was unable to do her vegetable selling business as it requires constant mobility, lifting and other manual laborious work. As such, she was put to severe hardship and monitory loss. Hence, hled claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,0O0 against the respondent Nos. 1 & 2, who are the ou,ner and insurer of crime Auto Trolley.

6. Respondent No. 1, owner of the crime Auto Trolley Bearing No.AP-28-TV-0616, remained ex-parte.

7. Respondent No.2/Insurance Company filed its counter derrying the averments made in the claim petition including, 3 MGP,I MACMA.No.3129 ol 2016 involvement of the vehicle, occurrence of accident, age, earnings of the petitioner. injuries sustained to her and treatment undergone by the injured. It also contended that the driver of the Auto Trolley in which petitioner had travelled do not possess valid license to diive the said vehicle. As such, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation

8. Based on the pleadings made by both the parties, the learned Tribunal had framed the following issues:- (n (tt Whtzther the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident ort 11.03.2013 due to r<tsh and negligent diving of the driuer of cime Auto beaing N>.AP-28TV-0616? Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and if so, to uthat quantum and to tuhom such quanfitm is recouerable? (iil To Luhat relieP

9. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner/injured, in order to substantiate her claim, got examined herself as PW1 and also got examined PW2-Doctor and got marked Exs.Al to ,{6 along with Exs.Xl to X3 on her behalf. On behalf ol Respondent No.2/Insurance Company, no witness was examined, however, Ex.B l-Copy of Insurance Policy was marked with consent.

10. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal had partly allowed the claim petition of the petitioner/ injured by awarding compensation 4 MGP.) MACMA.No.3129 ol2016 of Rs. 1,61,000/- along with interest @ 7.5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Having not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the petitioner/ inj ured preferred the present Appeal seeking enhancement of the same.

11. Heard arguments of Sri T.Viswarupa Chary, learned counsel for the appellant/injured and Sri Kondadi Ajay Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2/Insurance Company. Perused the record.

12. The contentions of the learned Counsel for appellant/ injured are that the learned Tribunal erred in assessing the disability sustained to her @ 2Oo/o as against the Disability Certificate issued I under Ex.X1. He also contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the loss of earning capacity of the petitioner @ 1OO% as she is incapable of doing her work as a vegetable vendor. It is further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the earnings of a vegetable vendor @ Rs.6,0OO/- per month by foliowing the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq u. United India Insurance Co.Ltd- (2014) 2 SCC 735 and further contended that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the petitioner/ injured as 55 instead of 50 and ought to have awarded future prospects to the income of the I /-/ 5 MGP,) MACMA.No.3129 of 2016 deceased and therefore prayed to allow the Appeal by enhancing the compensation amount.

13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2/Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal, after considering all the aspects, had awarded adequate compensation and interference of this Court is not necessary.

14. Now the point that emerges for determination is , l (r. (ii) POINT:- Wlrctter the order passed bg the learned Tribunal requires interference of this Court? Whether the petitioner/ injured is entitled for enhancement of co mpens otion?

15. A perusai of the record shows that the petitioner/injured examined herself as PWI and reiterated the contents of the claim petition and deposed about the manner of accident and injuries sustained to her. To prove the injuries sustained by her, she got examined PW2-Orthopaedic Surgeon. PW2 in his evidence deposed that the petitioner/injured approached their Hospital with the following injures:- (1) Fracture 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs right; (2) Fracture of Scapula and (3) Fracture of Pelvis. After making thorough examination of Medical record of the petitioner, he issued Ex.Xl-Disability Certificate as per Mc bride scale assessing the disability of the petitioner @ 3Oo/o which is partial and permanent ----- 6 MGP.] MACMA.No-3129 ol 2016 in nature. He further stated that the petitioner incurred permanent functional disability and cannot undertake agricultural operations on account of the injuries sustained by her. During his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not treated the patient, but he only assessed the disability sustained to her as per Mc.bride scale.

16. Apart from oral evidence, the petitioner/ injured also adduced documentary evidence under Exs.A1 to 4.6. Dr.Al- FIR shows that Police of Dundigal Police Station, Cyberabad District, registered a case in Crime No.186 of 2O13 under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC, conducted investigation and filed charge sheet under Ex.A2 against the driver of crime Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28-TV-0616. Ex.A3 is tlie Medico Legal Record issued by MNR Medical College Hospital, Sangareddy, which discloses that the petitioner sustained (1) Injury to forehead, (2) Injury to right cheek, (3) Pain on right shoulder and right hip (4) Fracture s of 3'd, 4e, 5n ribs, (5) Fracture of superior inferior public rami and (6) fracture of right scapuia, suprapubic rami and the said injuries are grievous in nature. Ex.A4 is the Discharge Summary issued by RR Hospitals wherein the petitioner/ injured was diagnosed for RTA-Head injury, blunt injury chest and pelvis and fracture of ribs 3,4, 5, fracture of scapula and fracture of pelvis inferior rami. Ex.AS is the MRI 1 MGP,J MACMA.No-3129 o12016 l.ambar Spine and Ex.A6 are the X-ray reports. Dr.Xl is the Handicapped Certificate issued by Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon assessing the disability sustained by the petitioner as '30%". Ex.X2 is the X-ray film and Ex.X3 is the Medical prescription

17. Therefore, from the above oral evidence of PWsl & 2 coupled with the documentary evidence under Exs.Al to ,{6 and Exs.Xl to X3, it can be safely concluded that the petitioner sustained grievous fracture injuries in an accident that occurred on I 1 .03.20 13 due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of crime Auto Trolley bearing No.AP-28TV-O616 which finding of the Tribunal attained finality and requires no interference by this Court.

18. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/injured as stated in the grounds of Appeal is that though the petitioner/ injured sustained disability @ 3Oo/o as per Ex.Xl-Disability Certifrcate, but the learned Tribunal assessed the said disability @ 20% as against the Disability Certificate issued under Ex.X I .

19. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the evidence of PW2, an Orthopedic Surgeon who deposed that the petitioner sustained 1) Fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5h right ribs; (2) Fracture of Scapula and (3) Fracture of Pelvis and assessed her disability @ 3Oo/o and issued I I 8 MGP,J MACMA.No.3lZ9 ol2015 Ex.X 1-Disabiltiy Certificate. He also stated that the pe titioner incurred permanent functional disability and cannot undertake agricultural operations on account of the injuries sustained by her.

20. Therefore, considering the evidence of PW2, Ex.Xl-Disability Certificate, fracture injuries sustained by the petitioner which are termed as grievous in nature and also the nature of work being performed by her as a Vegetable Vendor which involves lifting and constant mobility of goods from one place to another, this Court is inclined to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal and hereby consider the disabiiity sustained by the petitioner @ 3Oo/o as per Ex.X 1-Disability Certihcate.

21. It is further contended by the learned counsel for tl-e appellant/ injured that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the earnings of a vegetable vendor @ Rs.6,000/- per month by following the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Syed Sadiq u. United India Insurance Co.Ltd. (2ol4l 2 SCC 735.

22. In this regard, it is pertinent to state that though the petitioner/ injured contended that she is a vegetable vendor, she did not produce any license showing that she was doing such business. Hence, this Court, taking into consideration the cost of living as on the date of accident, is inclined to fix the monthly 9 MGP,j MACMA.No.3129 oJ 2016 I income of the deceased @ Rs.a,500/- per month by interfering with the finding of the learned Tribunal.

23. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/ injured that the Tribunal ought to have considered the age of the injured as 5O years and ought to have applied multiplier 13 and calculated the compensation.

24. A perusal of the documents hled under Exs.A3 to A5 viz., Medico Legal Record, Discharge Summary and MRI Lambar Spine discloses the age of the injured as 55 years. Hence, the leained Tribunal took the age of the injured as 55 years and calculated compensation which this Court finds the same to be justihed and needs no interference of the same. Hence, the contention of the appellant/injured is unsustainable in this regard.

25. As far as the contention regarding awarding of future prospects is concerned, it is pertinent to state that though PW2 stated that the petitioner incurred permanent functional disability and cannot undertake agricultural operations on account of the injuries sustained by her, there is no whisper with regard to reduction of any income of PWI on account of these injuries. Even PW2 deposed that patient (injured) incurred permanent functional disability for her agricultural profession. But, as per the version of I 10 MGP,.I MACMA.No.3129 of 2016 petitioner/ injured, she is the vegetable vendor. Moreover, her functional disabitity is only to the extent of agricultural profession. It is not the case of petitioner that she cannot attend any work and I it implies that she can do any other works. Though PW l/injured deposed that she is unable to do her work on account of her disability, the injuries sustained by her are not permanent in nature and there is every possibility of recovering from those injuries. It is settled law that future prospects can be claimed in accident cases involving serious injuries resulting in permanent disablement. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for any' future prospects.

26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to modify the impugned judgment and calculate the compensation as indicated below:- Loss of income on account of disability = income of the injured x 12 x percentage of disability x relevant multiplier = 4,500 x 12 x 3Oo/ox71 : Rs. 1 ,78,200/ -

27. It is also pertinent to mention that the learned Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.1O,00O/- towards transport charges, an amount of Rs. 1 2,0OO/ - for loss of income during the period of 11 MGP,J MACMA.No.3129 oJ 2016 treatment and an amount of Rs.60,O00/- towards pain and suffering which this Court finds the same to be reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same. Hence, the appellant/ injured is entitled for compensation as detailed under. S.No. Name of the Head Awarded Tribunal by Awarded this Court 1 2 3 4 ls. I I 6 7 Monthly income Rs.s000/- Rs.4,s00/ - Percentage disability 2OVo 3Oo/o Multiplier adopted 11 Transport and other miscellaneous expenses Loss of income during period of treatment Paiq and suffering, loss of amenities and expectation of life TOTAL COMPENSATION Rs.10,0O0/- Rs.12,000/- Rs.60,O00/- Rs, 1,6L,OOO/- Rs.2,6O,2OOl-

28. As far as interest on the compensation amount is concerned, I the learned Tribunal awarded interest @ 7 .5o/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization which this Court finds reasonable and is not inclined to interfere with the same .

29. As far as liability is concerned, as Ex.Bl-lnsurance poiicy was in force as on the date of accident and in the absence of rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondents, this Court is of the considered 12 MGP.J MACMA.No.3129 of 2016 opinion tJlat the Tribunal had rightly fixed the liability upon respondents I & 2 in paying the compensation amount.

30. In rhe result, M.A.C.M.A.No.3129 of 2016 filed by the appellant/ injured is partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal from Rs. 1,61,000/- to Rs.2,6O,2OOl- which shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Upon such deposit, the appellant/ inj ured is entitled to withdraw tt " same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. 3 1. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed Sd/. L. VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR \ //TRUE COPYil To, l The Motor Accidents craims Tribungr-cum-x Additionar chief Judge, city civir - Gourt at Hyderabad. (with records. ii anri ' ' '-" "" 2. One CC to Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, Adviicate [OpUC] 3. 9ne CC to Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate foputll - ' 4. M Duroa coud AtiiDirram .S{; Anj;-cord, -nil H.No.4-20, Kondaplr, Medak, Sangar;ddy' '-" ''' 5. Two CD Copies fr,r";or, Occ: Business, R/o. ECTION OFFICER VIllDL w HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 JUDGMENT+DECREE MACMA.No.3129 of 2016 e S TAI€ 1s l\rq u6 o 1: -c- * Or.1r ^.-;;"'' T - (-, PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS "J)i- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE M.G,PRIYADARSINI MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 3129 OF 2016 Between: Smt. L. Laxmi Wo. Chandru, Aged 53 yrs, Occ Vegetable Business, Rt/o. Devamma Thanda, Peddagothimukkala Village, Shivampet Mandal, Ivledak District. ...APPELLANT AND 'l . M Durga Goud Allipuram S/o. Anja Goud, Age Major, Occ: Business, R/o. H-No. 4-20, Kondapur, Medak, Sangareddy.

2. Shriram General lnsurance Company Limited, Rep.by its Branch Manager, D.No.34-478, lll Floor, Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. (Rl ExParty in Lower Court) ...RESPONDENTS Appeal filed under section 173 of M.V.Act against the Order and Decree dated 18-04-2016 made in M.V.O.P.No. 1736 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearjng and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the malerial papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri T. Viswarupa Chary, Advocate for the appellant and Sri K. Ajay Kumar, Advocate for the Respondent No 2 and none appeared for Respondent No. 1 either in person or through Advocate. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows: 1 . That the Ivl.A.C.M.A.No. 3129 of 2016 filed by the appellanuinjured be and hereby partly-allowed by enhancing the compensation amount awarded by 7 the Tribunal from Rs. 1,61,000/- to Rs. 2,60,200/- which shall carry interest @ 7.5'/o per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization payable by both the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order;

2. That upon such deposit, the appellant injured is entitled to withdraw the same without furnishing any security;

3. That save as. aforesaid, the decree of the Lower Tribunal shall stand confirmed in all other aspects; and

4. That there shall be no order as lo costs in this appeal. Sdi- L. VIJAYA LAXMI T REGISTRAR ASSI T //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER 1 . The Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-X Additional Chief Judge, 2. Two CD Copies City Civil Court at Hyderabad. To, VH % I / / HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 DECREE MACMA.No.3129 of 2016 I PARTLY ALLOWING MACMA WITHOUT COSTS