THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.51 OF 2008 Dated:07.09.2010 Between: Myparthi Hanumantha Rao .. Appellant And Shaik Dandu Mahaboob Vali and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 22.10.2007 in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narsaraopet. The factual background for the appeal is that the injured – appellant was going on his cycle from his motor mechanic shop on 09.11.2004 at about 12 Noon on the left side of the road and near Pandu Hospital at Yerragondapalem, the driver of Jeep No.AP 7T 8226, driving the Jeep rashly and negligently, dashed against the cycle of the appellant. The appellant received grievous injuries on his head and right leg and was treated in Government Hospital, Markapur, and later he was shifted to GGH, Guntur, where he underwent treatment as inpatient. Crime No.67 of 2004 was registered by Yerragondapalem Police and the head injury and the fracture injury to right leg resulted in permanent disability to the appellant, whose right leg became shortened and bent. The appellant, who was left with a permanent disability, claimed a compensation of Rs.1,05,000/- from the owner and insurer of the Jeep claiming that he was earning Rs.2,000/- per month as a motor mechanic and has spent Rs.5,000/- towards medicines, special diet and attendant. While the owner of the Jeep remained ex parte, the insurer challenged the claim denying the rashness and negligence on the part of the Jeep driver and also contending that the Jeep driver had no valid and effective licence. The Jeep had no valid Permit and Fitness Certificate. The insurer also denied the subsistence of valid insurance policy for the Jeep and claimed compensation to be excessive. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the appellant for compensation and during enquiry, examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A1 to A5 and X1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly noting that this petition being filed under Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, any rashness and negligence need not be proved, but it also referred to the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A1 - copy of the First Information Report that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Jeep by its driver. The Tribunal also noted that the wound certificate - Ex.A3 showed the appellant to have suffered two grievous injuries and the Tribunal took the age of the appellant as 16 years by the time of accident, as per the medical record, and took his income as the notional income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, as provided by the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal did not believe the claim of the appellant as a motor mechanic earning Rs.2,000/- per month in view of his age and applying the multiplier of 16 referable to the age of 16 years, the Tribunal arrived at the loss of future income of the appellant at Rs.48,000/- proportionate to 20% disability suffered by him even after the treatment. The Tribunal allowed Rs.250/- covered by Ex.A5 - medical bills, and also thought it fit to award Rs.2,500/- towards attendant charges and Rs.2,000/- towards special diet. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,000/- towards pain and suffering and on the whole, a compensation of Rs.53,500/- was awarded with interest at 6% per annum and proportionate costs. Further directions were also given about the disbursement of the compensation. The claimant approached this Court against the impugned award contending that the gravity of the injuries was not appreciated and the prolonged treatment was not adequately compensated. The loss of amenities and enjoyment of life due to the injuries to both the ankle and knee joint of the right leg, the income of the appellant as a motor mechanic at Rs.2,000/- per month, the huge medical expenses, which the appellant had incurred towards medicines etc., and also the loss of marital life in view of his disability etc., were not duly compensated and the appellant was awarded compensation with a very low rate of interest at 6% per annum. The claimant, therefore, desired that the impugned award be reversed and compensation as claimed be granted. Heard Sri N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, and Sri K.Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent, and none appeared for the first respondent - owner of the Jeep before this Court. As the claim has been made under Sections 140 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the question of proof of any rashness or negligence may not arise, as observed by the Tribunal and even otherwise, there was the positive evidence on record through PW.1 and Ex.A1 about the cause for the accident being the rash and negligent driving of the Jeep. The subsistence of a valid insurance policy for the Jeep by the time of the accident is not seriously questioned, though a formal denial has been made in the written statement of the second respondent - insurer before the Tribunal, and therefore, the entitlement of the claimant to just and adequate compensation for the consequences of the injuries suffered during the accident need not be in doubt. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, it is seen that Section 163-A of the Act read with II Schedule specifically provides for the heads under which compensation can be awarded to the injured or deceased involved in the accident. Under the II Schedule, a person, aged between 15 years and 20 years, has to be subjected to the multiplier 16 for assessing the loss of income or loss of future income, and therefore, the Tribunal applying the multiplier 16 cannot be faulted when the age of the appellant was found to be only 16 years as per the medical records. Insofar as the alleged occupation of the claimant/appellant as a motor mechanic earning Rs.2,000/- per month is concerned, there is only his interested and self-serving statement on record, uncorroborated by any other material and the Tribunal relying upon the notional income provided by II Schedule under the circumstances, also cannot be seriously faulted. The calculation of the probable loss of future income of the claimant with reference to 20% disability, therefore, appears to be in tune with the II Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act and need not be interfered with. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, the proof of the medical bills up to Rs.250/- through Ex.A5 alone can be compensated, as the II Schedule in Item No.4 (ii) specifically states that only such of those medical expenses actually incurred and supported by bills/vouchers can be reimbursed. The Tribunal thought it fit to award Rs.2,500/- towards attendant charges and Rs.2,000/- towards special diet during the period of treatment, which is not permitted as per the II Schedule. Hence, the said amount of Rs.4,500/- shall not be permitted towards compensation to the appellant. However, insofar as the general damages for the grievous injuries are concerned, the II Schedule provides that for pain and suffering in respect of grievous injuries, Rs.5,000/- should be awarded and in the present case, the appellant suffered two grievous injuries and he ought to have been compensated with a sum of Rs.10,000/- as per II Schedule. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,000/- under this head, which has to be enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. If so, the appellant will be entitled to a total compensation of Rs.58,250/- and hence the enhancement of compensation should be by Rs.4,750/-. Such enhancement, of course, has to be ordered in terms of II Schedule. The enhanced portion of the compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum as the original compensation and proportionate costs also have to follow. In the result, the award in M.V.O.P.No.29 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Narsaraopet dated 22.10.2007 is modified by enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.4,750/- with interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal and no directions need be given at this distance of time regarding the disbursement of compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs. ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J 07.09.2010 KH