IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.2127 of 2001 Between: M. Komraiah .. Appellant AND M.D. Nageshwar Rao and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.68 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Adilabad, dated 24-08-1989. The injured claimant was involved in a motor accident at about 10.30 P.M. on 30-06-1987, when he was going to his place of work at Mandamarri and lorry No.ADM 3639, coming in opposite direction in high speed and driven rashly and negligently, dashed against him. The right leg of the claimant was crushed and fractured apart from other injuries sustained by the claimant. The cycle was also totally damaged and the claimant suffered a permanent disability. Hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle, as he had to undergo treatment at Mancherial and Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad till 05-11-1987 and as he is unable to walk even after treatment. He claimed to be leading a happy life with his wife and three children earning Rs.1,700/- per month before the accident and he may lose his job due to his physical disability now. While the driver and owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim contending that the accident was not reported to it by the owner or driver and the accident appears to have occurred only due to the negligence of the injured himself. The insurer denied all the allegations of the claimant. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, the subsistence of insurance with the insurer and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. It examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award accepting the evidence of the injured petitioner as P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report and the eye witness account of P.W.2. The Tribunal consequently concluded in the absence of any contrary evidence from the respondents that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident as alleged in Ex.A.2 report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and Ex.A.3 charge-sheet. The Tribunal also concluded that the insurance was in subsistence at the time of the accident and hence, considered all the respondents to be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal extracted the entire evidence of the claimant concerning the injuries and the consequences he suffered and observed that Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.10 certificates given by the medical officers, Exs.A.5 to A.7 letter and medical record and the evidence of the doctor as P.W.3 fully corroborate the claim of P.W.1. The Tribunal observed that the injured petitioner suffered a partial permanent disability of 55% as stated in Ex.A.9 certificate and concluded that the right leg of the petitioner had become useless. The petitioner aged about 30 years by the time of the accident, employed as an electrician after obtaining ITI certificate and appreciated as best craftsman by the employer, would have become Supervisor in due course and the accident deprived him of the opportunity of appearing for examinations for promotions. The Tribunal also observed that the petitioner is not able to do even normal work now and the prospects in his career were destroyed by a careless driver. After referring to the precedents cited before it, the Tribunal thought it fit to award a lump sum compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs against the respondents. The claimant is before this Court with this appeal contending that the quantum of compensation is totally unjustified and the total compensation as claimed should have been granted in the light of his right leg becoming useless and his suffering before and after the treatment also as upheld by the Tribunal itself. Heard Sri Varanasi Venkateswar, learned counsel representing Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Venkatarao, learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent. The appeal was dismissed for default against the 1st respondent as per Court order, dated 23-09-2008 and none appeared for the 2nd respondent. The conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident and the joint and several liability of all the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant are not challenged by any party and have become final. The only question left for consideration is the quantum of compensation. The claimant as P.W.1 stated about his being in-patient since the accident for about four months and obviously he must have lost his entire income for the entire period of four months. Even after the same, he was again in-patient for about one month in the area hospital, Bellampally and he had to continue his treatment even after discharge from the hospital as an outpatient and also with a private medical practitioner. He was getting Rs.1,900/- per month by the date of the accident as an electrician and if so, the deprivation of such income for the petitioner for about a period of six months in total should have resulted in awarding a compensation of Rs.11,000/- to Rs.12,000/- towards loss of income. The petitioner also claimed to have spent about Rs.3,000/- initially for purchase of medicines, Rs.12,000/- at Hyderabad in total including the cost of medicines and about Rs.8,000/- towards transport. The very manner of treatment since the accident for about six months may show the claim of having spent about Rs.23,000/- towards medicines, transport and attendant charges etc., to be not very high or unreasonable. Keeping in view the damage to the cycle of the claimant in the accident and damage to his clothing and other necessary and incidental expenses apart from those spoken to by him, at least the expenditure of Rs.23,000/- stated by him would have been, undoubtedly, recoverable by him. The permanent disability suffered by him was stated to be 55% in the right leg and he was stated to be aged 30 years by the time of the accident. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the person aged 30 years as per Sarala Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] would be 17 and if the permanent disability of a percentage of 55 in the right leg were to be reasonably assessed to be resulting in loss of earning capacity of about 20% and if the income were to be taken as between Rs.1,700/- and Rs.1,900/- per month as stated by P.W.1 himself, the annual loss may come to about Rs.4,000/- to Rs.5,000/-. On the annual loss of Rs.4,000/-, the total future loss of earning capacity has to be, therefore, considered, applying the multiplier of 17, as about Rs.68,000/-. The permanent disability suffered for the right leg also has to be adequately and sufficiently compensated, which can be assessed at Rs.20,000/-. The pain and suffering, loss of amenities of life, discomfort and all other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages can be roughly assessed to be compensable by awarding about Rs.27,000/-. Therefore, awarding a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- in total will be awarding just and adequate compensation, also with reference to the principles laid down in the six precedents referred to by the Tribunal itself. The amount cannot be considered high in the light of the conclusion of the Tribunal on the evidence that the claimant was suffering hell with ulcers, infections and inability to sit or walk and was under a threat of future amputation of his leg. The Tribunal also recognized that there was need for use of medicines for long time to come and consequently, the enhanced compensation cannot be considered to be disproportionate. However, keeping in view the distance of time for which interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, the rate of interest can be confined to 6 per cent per annum, while proportionate costs, of course, should follow the event. The impugned award has to be modified accordingly. In the result, the award, dated 24-08-1989 in O.P. No.68 of 1988 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-District Judge, Adilabad is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) with interest at 6 per cent per annum thereon from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. The appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 25-08-2010 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298