Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Gaddamaduga Saibaba and Others

P. Ramakrishnam Raju, J.—The respondent No. 1 herein, the petitioner in M.A.C.T.O.P. No. 198 of 1990 filed u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 30.12.1989 at Nagarjuna Canal Office Petrol Pump, Khammam, due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, i.e., tractor bearing No. AAN 9995 by respondent No. 2.

The respondent No. 1 is working in Mandal Revenue Office, Khammam, as Head Assistant. His wife, two daughters and a son are dependent upon him besides his mother and a minor brother. The respondent was getting a salary of Rs. 2,439/- per month. He was aged 40 years at the time of the accident. The respondent No. 1 was proceeding to the Office of the District Manager, A.P. State Housing Corporation, Khammam, on his vehicle, i.e., Luna Moped bearing No. AAH 423 at about 2 p.m. on 30.12.1989 and when he reached the petrol bunk, the tractor being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against his Luna Moped and the front tyres of the tractor ran over respondent No. 1 and due to the said accident he received multiple injuries all over his body. He was admitted to the Government Hospital, Khammam and the doctor who examined him opined that spinal cord of respondent No. 1 was fractured and, therefore, advised that respondent No. 1 should be removed to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, for treatment. Respondent No. 1 was under the treatment of Dr. V.S. Reddy and, accordingly, respondent No. 1 underwent two operations. Respondent No. 1 lost complete sensation from abdominal portion to the toe in view of the fracture of the spinal cord. He is not in a position to move or even lift his hands. He, therefore, employed two attendants to serve him throughout the day. The doctors opined that respondent No. 1 had to remain in bed for the rest of his life. He spent about Rs. 15,000/-towards transport charges from Khammam to Hyderabad and back to Khammam by engaging taxi several times. He claimed in all Rs. 5,26,824/- at the rate of Rs. 2,439/-per month towards general and special damages for a period of 18 years, taking the period of retirement at 58 years.

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the tractor. Respondent No. 4 is the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Khammam. Respondent No. 3 in the O.P. is the appellant herein. It denied the material allegations in the petition. Respondent No. 4 denied having issued any policy of insurance in favour of the vehicle bearing No. AAH 423.

Respondent No. 1 examined three witnesses besides examining himself as P.W. 1 and marked Exhs, A-1 to A-9. The appellant did not examine any witnesses, except marking Exh. B-1. The Tribunal on a consideration of the entire material on record, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by its driver, respondent No. 2.

Respondent No. 1 was getting a salary of Rs. 2,439/- per month on the date of accident. If calculated at the said rate for a period of 18 years, he would have earned Rs. 5,26,824/-. He sought a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- with 12 per cent interest and costs. Insurance policy, Exh. B-1, covers both the tractor and trailer. Respondent No. 3 is held to be vicariously liable, while there is no responsibility for respondent No. 4. It also found that respondent No. 1 was not in a position to earn anything. The Tribunal found that engaging two attendants, respondent No. 1 has to spend Rs. 900/- every month which would come to Rs. 10,800/-per year and for 20 years, it would come to Rs. 2,16,000/-. The Tribunal took into consideration that respondent No. 1 would have earned at the average of Rs. 3,000/-per month which comes to Rs. 36,000/-per year and for a period of 13 years, it comes to Rs. 4,68,000/-. The respondent No. 1 is entitled to 12 per cent interest and proportionate costs, and, accordingly, awarded the said sum with proportionate costs from the date of petition till the date of realisation.

The Tribunal further directed that out of the said sum, a sum of Rs. 2,68,000 and costs may be kept in fixed deposit and a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- can be paid to respondent No. 1. The interest awarded on the compensation amount shall be paid to the wife of respondent No. 1 for proper upkeep and to look after the appellant. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No. 3, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Khammam Branch, preferred this appeal.

In this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant urged that respondent No. 1 is attending his office, and, therefore, compensation awarded on the basis that he is not able to move about nor attend his office cannot be sustained. In view of this contention, we directed both parties to file affidavits to find out whether respondent No. 1 is continuing in his job or not. Accordingly, the Assistant Manager of the appellant company filed affidavit, stating that as respondent No. 1 is continuing in his job, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the basis that respondent No. 1 would not be in a position to move about and attend his office is not correct, and, therefore, the compensation as awarded has to be revised.

Respondent No. 1 has also filed his affidavit dated 10.12.1995 stating that as his both legs are paralysed he is moving in a wheelchair with the help of the attendants. The body below the chest lost senses due to the accident. However, he was allowed to join duty solely on compassionate grounds in order to save his family from starvation and at present he is drawing a salary of Rs. 5,217/- and there is every risk of being removed from the service at any time because he is continuing on compassionate grounds.

We have heard both the Counsel. The findings of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 2, driver and the appellant and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation cannot be disturbed. However, in view of the fact that respondent No. 1 is attending to his office we are of the view that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal requires modification.

Taking into consideration the present salary of respondent No. 1 and also the fact that he is working since 16.6.1993 and continuing as such, we are of the view that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal shall be reduced by Rs. 2,00,000. This reduction is made irrespective of the fact whether respondent No. 1 is allowed to continue in office till he attains superannuation or discharged meanwhile.

Subject to the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.