HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3232 OF 2002 Date: 30-07-2010 Between Palla Bangaramma ……….. Appellant and Kalisetti Krishna Rao and another …….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 3232 OF 2002 ORDER: This Appeal is filed, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the Judgment, dated 05-01-2000 passed in O.P.No.633 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows; On 29-04-1998, while the appellant-claimant was proceeding from Chinnapuram village to her village on the far left side of the road and when she reached near V.T. Agraharam electrical sub-station at about 3-45 PM, an APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 956, driven by the first respondent at high sped in a rash and negligent manner, came and dashed her, as a result of which she fell down and received injuries all over the body. Immediately, the appellant-claimant was taken to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, and the doctor found multiple fractures to the left leg below the knee. On 13-05-1998, the leg of the appellant-claimant was operated and amputated below the knee. Therefore, the appellant-claimant filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- against the respondents. 3. The third respondent filed counter denying the material averments of the petition and contending that the appellant-claimant has to prove that she sustained the injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle, and that the amount claimed by her is also excessive. 4. In order to prove her claim, the appellant-claimant herself was examined as PW-1 along with PW-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. 5. The Claims Tribunal, after going through the entire evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent-driver of the crime vehicle. Therefore, for the purpose of awarding compensation, the Claims Tribunal fixed the earning capacity of the appellant- claimant at Rs.1,500/- per month, which comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum, and assessed the disability at 30% and applied multiplier ‘15’. Ultimately, after deducting 30% from the annual loss of earning and by applying multiplier ‘15’ to the remaining amount, awarded a sum of Rs.81,000/- towards loss of earnings capacity and permanent disability. The Claims Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.8,630/- under the head of medicines, transportation and extra nourishment and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, the total compensation of Rs.94,630/- was awarded to the appellant-claimant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant- claimant filed this Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contended that according to Ex.A-7, disability certificate, the disability of the claimant was assessed at 50% by PW-2, doctor, but the Claims Tribunal, without any basis, came to it’s own conclusion that the disability is 30% only and accordingly, awarded the compensation and therefore, the same has to be enhanced. 7. Admittedly the age of the appellant-claimant is 40 years. She herself narrated about the accident occurred and in the absence of any contrary evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by the first respondent. Admittedly as per Ex.A-7, disability certificate, PW-2, doctor, assessed the disability at 50% and no contrary evidence was adduced by the respondents to disbelieve the same. Though Claims Tribunal fixed the percentage of disability at 30%, as per the opinion of PW-2 under Ex.A-7, it has the effect of permanent disability as it relates to amputation of leg. In the absence of any contrary evidence adduced by the respondents as to the genuineness or otherwise of Ex.A-7, the same cannot be ignored. The fact that the appellant- claimant has sustained permanent disability is not denied. Admittedly, there is no dispute with regard to the application of multiplier. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR v. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION [1], observed that: “the determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same time not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of him and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasis that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach.” 9. In view of the above circumstances, the disability of the appellant-claimant is taken at 50% as per Ex.A-7. The income of the appellant-claimant is taken at Rs.50/- per day, which comes to Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum. After deducting 50% out of the annual income, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.9,000/- per annum. After multiplying the annual loss of earnings with the relevant multiplier ‘15’, the total loss of earnings capacity comes to Rs.1,35,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 15), to which the appellant- claimant is entitled to. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.54,000/- is enhanced. 10. So far as the amounts awarded under the other heads is concerned, the Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.8,630/- towards medicines, transportation and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. As those amounts are just and reasonable, they need no interference and therefore, they are confirmed. 11. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part. The Judgment of the Claims Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.1,48,630/-. The appellant-claimant is entitled to the enhanced amount of Rs.54,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 30-07-2010 YCR [1] AIR 1992 SC 1261