THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 571 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is directed against order and decree made in O.P. No. 2311 of 2001 dated 14.10.2003 on the file of learned IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-M.V.A.T., City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Claimant is the appellant. Respondent No.1 is the owner of Ambassador Car bearing No. ATJ (T) 9333 and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. It appears, on 7.9.2000 at about 5.45 p.m. at Road No.1, near Petrol Pump, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, one Ambassador Car bearing No. ATJ (T) 9333 came in rash and negligent manner and dashed appellant, due to whish he sustained grievous injuries, namely, fracture to his left leg at the thigh portion and fracture to his right hip joint and grievous injuries on his head, left hand and multiple injuries throughout his body. Police also registered a case against the driver of the said Ambassador Car and the appellant was shifted to Osmania General Hospital in unconscious condition. Therefore, he filed O.P. No. 2311 of 2001 and contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ambassador Car and, thus, claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2 filed counter affidavit, denying the allegations made by the appellant in the O.P. and stated that the claimant-appellant shall be put to strict proof of his earnings, age, injuries etc. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trbunal, for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident took place on 7.9.2000 at about 5.00 p.m. near petrol pump Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Ambassador Car No. ATJ (T) 9333? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? On behalf of appellant-petitioner, PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-10 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2, none was examined but Ex.B-1 was marked. After detailed consideration of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Ambassador Car bearing No. ATJ (T) 9333. In so far as compensation is concerned, it came to the conclusion that there is no evidence as to the earnings of the claimant though he stated that he was doing labour work and getting Rs.4,500/- per month. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.40/- per day and Rs.14,400/- per annum. The age of appellant was taken as 47 years and thus, multiplier ‘13’ was applied. Further, though the PW-3 stated that the appellant suffered 50% disability and issued certificate to that effect, the Tribunal took it as 20% and calculated the medical expenses to Rs.5,000/- and thus, in all, awarded compensation of Rs.66,040/-. Having not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, appellant- petitioner filed the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the appellant-claimant is working as labourer not in any remote villate but in the heart of the city i.e. at Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, but his daily wage was fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.40/- per day, which is most unreasonable. A daily wage worker would be getting at least Rs.100/- per day even during the year 2000. Therefore, the amount fixed by the Tribunal at Rs.40/- per day as daily wage is arbitrary and illegal. Further, according to Ex.A-3 - disability certificate issued by the Medical Oficer, the disability suffered by the appellant was fixed at 50%, whereas, the trial Court took into consideration the same as 20%. This aspect of the evidence, given by an expert, is brushed aside and the Tribunal came to its own conclusion and fixed the disability at 20%, which is not proper. Therefore, appellant-claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- as claimed by him. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- Insurance Company supported the order passed by the Tribunal and stated that absolutely there is no evidence as to income of the appellant-claimant and, therefore, he cannot claim more than Rs.40/- as daily wage and the question of fixing 50% disability does not arise in a case of this nature in the absence of any convincing evidence adduced by the claimant to that effect. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant-claimant hails from the city of Hyderabad and a resident of Road No.10, Banjara Hills. The daily wage of a labourer in that area, even during the year 2000, cannot be said to be less than Rs.60/-. Therefore, the daily wage of appellant-claimant can be taken as Rs.60/- per day, which comes to Rs.1800/- per month. Further, the Tribunal categorically held that PW-3 is a private practitioner and though he stated that he assessed disability at 50%, he did not speak as to how he arrived at 50% and that the petitioner-appellant did not file any disability certificate issued by a competent Medical Board. Thus, the disability fixed by the Tribunal at 20% cannot be disturbed. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on other heads is also quite reasonable and needs no interference. Thus, taking the daily wage of the appellant at Rs.60/- per day and the disability at 20%, appellant can be awarded an amount of Rs.56,160/- for the disability suffered by him. Further, the amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, Rs.3,600/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses cannot be said to be unreasonable. It further appears that there was no compensation awarded towards transportation and extra nourishment etc. This can be safely fixed at Rs.5,000/-. Thus, it is held that the appellant, in all, is entitled to compensation of Rs.89,760/- payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Further, the appellant is entitled to interest on the enhanced amount at 9% per annum from the date of appeal till the date of realization. The appeal is accordingly allowed partly. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 18-3-2010. MVB.