AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J.—Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 3269 and 3305 of 2003 arise out of O.P. Nos. 498 and 497 of 2002 respectively. As both these appeals relate to common accident, they are heard and being disposed of together.
The claimants in both the O. Ps. are Respondent No. 1 in these appeals. They were traveling in a Fiat car bearing registration No. AP 10F 4000 on 06.02.2002 from Kalwakurthi towards Hyderabad. At about 5.30 p.m., lorry bearing No. AHT 6759 came in opposite direction near Ravirala Gate, opposite to Vedeocon Company and collided with the car. Both of them sustained injuries leading to filing of the above-noted O. Ps. in the Court of IV Additional Chief Judge-MVAT-CCC, Hyderabad (for short, "the Tribunal").
The claimant in CMA. No. 3269 of 2003 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- and the claimant in CMA. No. 3305 of 2003 claimed a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,45,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively in their favour along with interest @ 9% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by these orders, the present CM As are filed by the Insurance Company.
At the hearing, Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned Counsel for the Appellants, submitted that the Tribunal has not made a proper approach in computing the compensation, that there is no justification to accept the evidence adduced on behalf of the claimants - Respondent No. 1 in both the cases in coming to the conclusion that they have suffered permanent disability of 30% and 20% respectively and that in CMA. No. 3269 of 2003, the Tribunal ought to have taken 16 as multiplier instead of 17.
Sri Chandrashekar Reddy, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 in each of these cases, opposed the above submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellants and contended that the reasoning of the Tribunal is supported by the evidence on record.
Inasmuch as no submission regarding the finding relating to rash and negligent driving is advanced, it is not necessary to discuss the manner in which the accident has occurred. Having regard to the assessment of compensation in both the cases, Medico Legal Record was marked as Ex.A3 and the original discharge card was marked as Ex.A4 on behalf of the claimants.
In Ex.A3 in CMA. No. 3269 of 2003 issued by the Osmania General Hospital, it is mentioned that the claimant suffered visible deformity on lower 1/3rd of right leg apart from laceration injuries. In Ex.A4 closed fracture of tibia and febula lower 1/3rd of right leg is mentioned. In CMA. No. 3305 of 2003, Ex.A3 did not specifically refer to the description of the injuries, but they are described as grievous in nature. However, in Ex.A4 closed fracture on left tibia middle 1/3rd is mentioned. The evidence on record has not disclosed that the Appellants have either elicited any thing significant to discredit the medical record produced by the claimants nor they have adduced any contra evidence. Though PW.2, doctor examined by the claimants, assessed the disability at 50% and 40% in case of both the claimants respectively, the Tribunal has adopted 30% and 20% while assessing loss of income. The Tribunal has taken the monthly income at Rs. 2,000/- as against Rs. 4,000/- claimed by the claimant in O.P. No. 498 of 2002 and Rs. 1,500/- per month as against Rs. 2,500/- claimed by the claimant in O.P. No. 497 of 2002. The approach of the Tribunal on this aspect does not appear to be unreasonable.
With regard to the multiplier adopted in O.P. No. 498 of 2002, the learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that according to the judgment in Smt. Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, considering the age of the claimant, multiplier of 16 should have been adopted. The learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that apart from the fracture on the right leg, the claimant has suffered abdominal injury and undergone laporatory and that as against the disability of 50% suffered by him, as certified under Ex.A6, the Tribunal has adopted only 30% in assessing compensation. It is worth noticing that when the case was disposed of, the judgment in Sarla Verma (supra) was not in existence. Though in strict sense multiplier of 16 needs to be adopted in view of the judgment of Sarla Verma (supra), taking into consideration the fact that the Tribunal has reduced the percentage of disability to 30% without disbelieving Ex.A6 and the nature of injuries suffered by the claimant, I do not find any reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Similarly, in O.P. No. 497 of 2002, the Tribunal has made a very reasonable approach in taking the disability at 20% as against 40%, as certified in the disability certificate. The Tribunal has in fact adopted lower multiplier than what has been laid down in Sarla Verma (supra).
Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the cases, I am of the opinion that the awards of the Tribunal do not call for any interference. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are accordingly dismissed.