IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDAY THE FIRST DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN PRESENT HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 2790 OF 2005 AND MACMA.NO. 3480 OF 2005.
Between: MACMA.NO. 2790 of 2005 Balapuram Ramulu … Appellant/Claimant V/s.
K.Malla Ram Reddy & Anr. … Respondents/Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri Molugu Krishna Reddy Counsel for Respondents : Sri K.Kishore Kumar Reddy Between: MACMA.NO. 3480 OF 2005 The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Represented by its Divisional Officer-XI MCH Colony, Malakpet, Hyderabad. … Appellant/Respondent No.2 V/s.
Balapuram Ramulu & Anr. … Respondents/Respondent No.1 Counsel for the appellant : Sri E.Venugopal Reddy Counsel for the respondents : Sri Molugu Krishna Reddy The court made the following : [common judgment follows] HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 2790 OF 2005 AND MACMA.NO. 3480 OF 2005 COMMON JUDGMENT :
MACMA.No. 2790 of 2005 is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation. MACMA.No. 3480 of 2005 is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited challenging the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant and also pleading contributory negligence.
2. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 24/04/2000 at about 16:00 hours, the claimant and his co-brother Narsimha were proceeding in Auto bearing No.AP-
13-V-5481 towards Manchala road from Ibrahimpatnam to Nomula village. When the said auto was near Nomula village another bearing No. AP-11-W-708 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the claimant’s auto causing grievous injuries besides fracture and he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. It is stated that he incurred Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses. His specific case is that he is unable to do work as previously. It is also his case that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month as labourer prior to the date of accident.
3. The main submission of the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant is that claimant sustained permanent disability. However, the Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of Rs.24,000/- and nothing has been awarded towards loss of future earnings.
4. The main submission of Sri E.Venugopal Reddy, learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company is that there is contributory negligence and the Claims Tribunal ought to have apportioned contributory negligence between the drivers of two autos. He further submits that since the claimant has not obtained any disability certificate and no doctor is examined and at this stage, percentage of disability cannot be decided.
5. Now the points that arises for consideration is:
(i) Whether there was any contributory negligence between the two autos ?
(ii) What is the quantum of compensation to which the claimant is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case ?
6. POINT (i) & (ii) :
In this appeal, the claimant himself was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked. The original case sheet of the claimant was marked as Ex.X-1. None was examined on behalf of respondents but Ex.B-1 CC of Insurance Policy was marked. The claimant deposed that on 24/04/2000 at about 04:00 p.m. he along with his co-brother Narsimha boarded an auto bearing No. AP-13-V-5481 to go to Nomula village from Manchala road from Ibrahimpatnam. It is also his case that meanwhile another Auto bearing No. AP-11-W-708 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the Auto bearing No.AP-13-V-5481. The claimant’s specific case is that the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-708 driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against it. He denied the suggestion that the driver of auto in which he was travelling was negligent. Ex.A-1 is the copy of FIR. As seen from the contents of Ex.A-1 FIR, the co-brother of the claimant lodged complaint to the Police. Ex.A-2 is the charge sheet. All these documents reveal that the driver of Auto bearing No. AP-11-W-708 has driven it in a rash and negligent manner. When the Insurance Company had taken a plea that there is possibility of contributory negligence, it was obligatory on the part of Insurance Company to examine the driver of Auto bearing No.AP-11-W-708 in support of its contention. There is no contra evidence, and therefore, the version of PW-1 which is supported by the contents of documents filed by him, has to be accepted. Therefore, I do not see any reason to take a different view in this case.
7. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Claims Tribunal has taken the income of injured/claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month. There cannot be any doubt that Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed his income. The Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant allowance, Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment charges, Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.4,000/- towards loss of earnings. The appellant-claimant is awarded total compensation under the following heads:
1. Transportation Rs. 1,000=00
2. Damage of clothes Rs. 1,000=00
3. Pain & suffering Rs. 5,000=00
4. Attendant allowance Rs. 5,000=00
5. Extra-nourishment Rs. 5,000=00
6. Medical expenses Rs. 3,000=00
7. Loss of earnings Rs. 4,000=00 Total :: Rs. 24,000=00 = = = = = = =
8. The x-ray taken at Government Hospital, Ibrahimpatnam reveal that appellant sustained fracture of 2nd to 5th right side ribs and fracture of scapula. He was admitted in the hospital on 24/4/2000 and then he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. The appellant/claimant was treated as inpatient in Osmani a General Hospital, Hyderabad and he was discharged on 08/5/2000. The claimant has not obtained any disability certificate. The doctor should note whether there is any proper re-union of the bones or not. Any how, as per the case sheet, the appellant/claimant was sustained fracture of ribs and scapula and he underwent operation. However, there is no record to show that what is the position of fracture of bones at the time of discharge. According to the claimant, evenafter discharge from the hospital, he is not completely recovered and he is experiencing pain while breathing and unable to attend any work. The Claims Tribunal has determined the age of the claimant as 60 years. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to hold that the appellant/claimant may not be in a position to work as previously in view of the fracture sustained by him to his ribs and his loss of earning is estimated to 25% i.e., Rs.450/- per month. Rs.9,000/- per annum and the appropriate multiplier is ‘9’. So in all Rs.81,000=00 is estimated towards future loss of earning. The amount awarded under other heads appears to be just and reasonable. So thus, in all, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.24,000=00 + 81,000=00 = Rs.1,05,000=00. In view of the above, MACMA.No.2790 of 2005 filed by the claimant is allowed and MACMA.No. 3480 of 2005 filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. No costs.
9. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions if any pending, in these appeals shall stand closed.
JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR .
01/12/2014
I s L
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA.NO. 2790 OF 2005 AND MACMA.NO. 3480 OF 2005 Circulation No.183 Date: 01/12/2014 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43