HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1580 OF 2001 Dated: 19.03.2010 BETWEEN: Jalagam Devender Rao @ Devendar .. Appellant And P.Sharathbabu and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1580 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the award, dated 18.04.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Warangal in O.P.No.175 of 2000. 2. The challenge to the award is only regarding the quantum of compensation. As against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- preferred by the appellant under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,35,000/-. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied of the same on the ground that it is grossly inadequate and not just and reasonable, the appellant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 4. The appeal relates to only the quantum of compensation, the other findings became final, pursuant to the award passed by the Tribunal. The appellant/injured is aged 40 years and he was said to be an agriculturalist, in proof of which he filed documents before the learned Tribunal. However, the appellant did not file any documents showing the income of the injured. According to the appellant, his income per month is Rs.2,500/-. The learned Tribunal considering that since it is not the case of the appellant that after the accident he was not able to supervise the agricultural activity and as such, he sold the lands estimated his income at Rs.625/- on the ground that it was only supervisory loss and computed the compensation. Considering the said income, selecting the relevant multiplier 15 to the age of the appellant as mentioned in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- under various heads. The learned Tribunal, in my considered view, ought to have taken the income of the injured at Rs.1500/- p.m. and considering meager amount of Rs.650/- is not proper. Further the learned Tribunal did not consider the percentage of disability at the time of computing the compensation, which is also not correct. The learned Tribunal also committed a grave error having arrived at the finding that the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,12,500/- towards loss of future earnings restricting the same to Rs.75,000/- on the ground that the appellant claimed an amount of Rs.75,000/- under that particular head. Since, this amount is within the total claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, absolutely there is no basis to restrict the loss of earnings to Rs.75,000/-. 5. However, since the whole approach of computation of compensation with regard to future loss of earnings is erroneous, the compensation has to be computed afresh in this appeal. The monthly income of the appellant is Rs.1500/-, and his annual income comes to Rs.1500/- x 12 =Rs.18,000/-. The percentage of disability sustained by the appellant as per the evidence of PW.3-doctor, who is one of the members of the medical board and who issued the disability certificate Ex.A.5 is 40%. The appropriate multiplier is 15. Calculated on that basis, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.18,000/- x 15 x 40/100 + 1,08,000/-. This apart, in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal stated that the appellant was hospitalised for a period of one month, an amount of Rs.1500/- can be granted to the appellant for the loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization. The amount of Rs.40,000/- granted by the learned Tribunal towards medical expenses and further sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering being reasonable, they are affirmed in this appeal. 6. In all the petitioner is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,69,500/-. Therefore, the enhancement in compensation would be Rs.34,500/- (Rs.1,69,500/- minus Rs. 1,35,000/-). The interest of 12% per annum granted on the amount of compensation being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 19.03.2010 Kvrm