THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.662 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant- claimant against the order and decree, dated 31.07.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Mahabubnagar, in O.P.No.169/1995. 2. Heard. 3. The facts are as follows: According to the petitioner-claimant, on 05.05.1994 at about 7.30a.m., when he was standing near Shadnagar cross roads waiting for transportation for going to Chevella village, lorry bearing No.AAQ-5253 came from Pargi side in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him and he suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to Osmania Hospital, where he took treatment for 15 days as inpatient, he suffered fractures on carpus, dislocation and fracture of CMP joint, crush injury to left fore arm and his left hand was amputated from below elbow. On account of the accident, he is unable to walk as before. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- contending that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month as supervisor at a marble factory and he spent Rs.80,000/- for treatment. 4. Second respondent - Insurance company filed counter and on the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry be aring No.AAQ-5253? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents, and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A12. Out of which, Ex.A1 is copy of FIR, Ex.A2 is certified copy of out patient chit, Ex.A3 is the Xerox copy of case sheet, Ex.A4 is medico legal report, Exs.A5 to A7 are also material relating to treatment in Osmania General Hospital, Ex.A8 is medical bills, Ex.A9 is photographs showing amputation of left hand of claimant, Ex.A10 is the driving licence, Ex.A11 is the copy of insurance policy, Ex.A12 is the salary certificate of the claimant. On behalf of the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Considering the material on record, the Court below granted total compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh towards loss of income, pain and suffering etc. Aggrieved by the above quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant is that the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- as he suffered amputation of left hand and he was unable to do any work. After the accident he has become unfit for doing work as before apart from suffering several inconveniences on account of the loss of hand and the compensation awarded is on lower side. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as the petitioner lost only left hand and there is no authentic proof with regard to the income of the petitioner-appellant, the compensation awarded is appropriate. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 8. The facts are not at all in dispute. There is no dispute about the petitioner-appellant suffering injuries in a road accident caused by a lorry. There is no dispute about his left hand being amputated at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. 9. As the petitioner-appellant suffered fractures and consequent amputation of his left hand, he must have suffered sufficient pain and inconvenience during the period of treatment. Though there is no authentic material with regard to his income, as the claim is Rs.3000/- per month made by the claimant, even if he is treated as a labourer earning Rs.50/- a day also, his income can be put at Rs.1500/- per month and on the basis of his age ‘11’ is the appropriate multiplier. If it is so, the loss of income of the petitioner would comes to around Rs.2.00 lakhs, but the disability is only around 50%, which comes to Rs.1.00 lakh and the same is awarded by the Court below. But the fact that on account of the injuries and consequent amputation of hand, the petitioner was put to any amount of inconvenience apart from pain and suffering, the petitioner deserves some more compensation. Hence, I hold that granting an amount of Rs.25,000/- more towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities etc., would be appropriate. As such, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.25,000/-, which comes to total Rs.1,25,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be @ 6% per annum. 10. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 23rd August 2010, Rns