THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3353 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree in M.O.P.No.677 of 1999 dated 10-02-2003 passed by the learned Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 04-06-1999 the petitioner was going on scooter bearing No.AP-9M-661. At Ghatkesar village at about 8.50 p.m., one R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-5403 proceeding from Hyderabad towards Warangal coming in opposite direction dashed against the scooter of the petitioner, on account of which, he suffered multiple injuries and he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital where his leg was amputated and another rider of the scooter died. A case in Crime No.69 of 1999 was registered and investigated. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. The respondent – A.P.S.R.T.C. filed counter denying the allegations. Basing on the allegations and the counter allegations, the trial Court framed the following three issues: 1. Whether the petitioner injured in the accident occurred on 04-06-1999 at 8.50 p.m., at Warangal – Hyderabad road in the limits of Ghatkesar village due to rash and negligent driving of driver of A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No.AP-10-Z-5403 ? 2. Whether the petitioner suffered any permanent disability in the accident ? 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation ? If so, to what relief ? 4. To what relief ? 4. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was entitled for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- and the respondent-corporation is liable for the same. 6. In this C.M.A., the quantum of compensation is seriously disputed by the appellant/claimant. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the Claimant is not appropriate ? 8. There is no dispute that the petitioner was aged around 25 years, as such, multiplier 18 would be applicable. The learned trial Judge did not give any reason as to why the compensation is fixed at Rs.1,50,000/-, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 9. There is no substantial evidence with regard to the earning capacity of the petitioner. Therefore, I am inclined to fix his income at Rs.2,000/- per month because even as a labourer he must have been earning Rs.60/- to Rs.70/- per day. Thus, if his income is taken at Rs.2,000/- per month, it comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum and if multiplier ‘18’ has to be applied, it comes to Rs.4,32,000/-. 10. As per Ex.A-11 his disability is taken as 45%, then it comes to Rs.1,94,000/- and odd and it can be rounded off to Rs.1,94,000/- . Hence, the petitioner can be awarded a minimum amount of Rs.1,94,000/- towards loss of income itself. 11. The Court below has awarded Rs.50,000/- towards his treatment. The petitioner would be entitled for compensation on other counts like pain and suffering as he underwent amputation to his leg twice. He lost several amenities in life on account of his handicap. Considering the facts and circumstances, another amount of Rs.50,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Then total compensation of Rs.2,94,000/- (Rs.1,94,000/- + Rs.50,000/- + Rs.50,000/-) can be awarded. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.2,94,000/- with interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition. The petitioner can withdraw the enhanced amount and interest thereon in two instalments i.e., 50% after one year from now and the remaining two (2) years thereafter. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. June 21, 2010 Pn THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3353 of 2003 June 21, 2010