THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2895 of 2007 and 2042 of 2009 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) Both the appeals are directed against the award passed in M.V.O.P.No.373 of 2003 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum - I Additional District Judge, Chittoor on 07.06.2007. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2895 of 2007 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2042 of 2009 is filed by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The claimant has filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor vehicle accident. According to the claimant, he is aged about 22 years and studying B.E. 2nd year in S.J.C. Institute of Technology, Chikkaballapur in Karnakata State. On 20.07.2003 while he was walking on the left side of the road, a lorry bearing No.AP 02U 2658 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him from behind, due to which he fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over his body. He received head injury and injury to his noses and other bodily injuries. He was unconscious for 3 days after the accident and took treatment in Care hospital as inpatient from 20.07.2003 to 01.09.2003. He suffered contusions to right frontal, right thalamus, right internal capsule, mid brain with diffuse cerebral oedema and diagnosis of diffuse axonal injury was made. He is unable to read, write and speak fluently and he lost his memory due to the head injury. He suffered permanent disability of 60%. He lost his academic career as engineering student and lost his bright prospects in his profession. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, remained exparte. The 2nd respondent/insurance company opposed the said claim by filing counter and put the petitioner to strict proof with regard to the manner in which the alleged accident has occurred and denied about the age, educational qualification of the claimant and put him to strict proof of the same and also denied about the nature of the injures suffered by the claimant and pleaded that the compensation claimed by the claimant is highly excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 02U 2658? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation? If so, to what quantum and from whom? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.18 and Ex.X.1. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the insurance company, but Ex.B.1 copy of the policy was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The said finding was not questioned by the Insurance Company. With regard to awarding quantum of compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal by taking into consideration that the claimant is a non- earning member and taking the notional income of the claimant at Rs.15,000/- per year as per the II schedule of M.V.Act and applied multiplier ‘17’ and by taking into consideration of the disability at 60%, awarded an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- towards permanent disability. Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,00,000/- towards medical bills. Thus, in total the Tribunal awarded Rs.3,98,000/- with interest at 7.5% P.A. The learned counsel for the claimant has pleaded that the Tribunal erred in applying the proper multiplier and as the deceased sustained physical and functional disability even though at 60%, he is almost suffering 100% disability, as such 100% disability has to be taken into consideration. It is also further pleaded that total medical expenditure incurred by the claimant was not awarded by the Tribunal and if the same are taken into consideration the claimant is entitled for the compensation as claimed by him. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company on the other hand has pleaded that the compensation awarded for the permanent disability is highly excessive and the G.P.A. is not competent to file the petition, as such the claim of the petitioner is liable to be rejected. The petition was filed on behalf of the claimant V.Vishunu Nandan by his G.P.A. Mahima Devi, who is his mother. As per the medical evidence produced on behalf of the claimant, the claimant V.Vishunu Nandan has suffered 60% disability and he is unable to read, write or speak fluently and he lost his memory due to head injury. Therefore, in the circumstances the Tribunal has permitted his mother to prosecute the case on his behalf. Therefore, the contention of the standing counsel for insurance company that the G.P.A. is not competent to file the petition on behalf of the claimant cannot be accepted in the above circumstances. There is no dispute between the parties that the claimant is a student of II year engineering at the time of accident. The Tribunal has taken into consideration his notional income at Rs.15,000/- per year as per II schedule of the M.V.Act taking him as non-earning member. In view of the decision rendered in “B.Ramuklamma and others V. M/S Venkatesh Bus Union, rep. by A.M.Velu Mudaliyar, Bangalore and another (2009 (6) ALT 784 (D.B.)”, the income of the IV year engineering student has to be taken as Rs.12,000/- per month and 10% per year can be deducted in respect of students studying 3rd year or 2nd year as the case may be. Since the claimant is a student of 2nd year engineering student as on the date of the accident, 20% has to be deducted from Rs.12,000/- for arriving at the notional income of the claimant. Thus, the income of the claimant comes to Rs.9,600/- per month, accordingly the annual income of the claimant is Rs.1,15,200/-. Since the age of the claimant is 22 years, as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” the proper multiplier is ‘18’. Since the claimant suffered 60% disability, the compensation payable for the permanent disability of the claimant comes to Rs.1,15,200 X 18 X 60/100 = Rs.12,44,160/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, he has to suffer throughout his life, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.45,000/- towards pain and suffering and we do not want to interfere with the said finding. The Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,00,000/- towards the medical expenses incurred by the claimant. The claimant has produced medical bills to a tune of Rs.2,44,328/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for Rs.2,44,328/- towards medical expenses. Thus, in all the claimant is entitled for Rs.15,33,448. Since the petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-, the compensation payable to the petitioner is restricted to Rs.15,00,000/-. The Tribunal has awarded 7.5% interest on the compensation, but as per Smt.Sarla Verma’s case (referred supra), the interest to which the petitioner is entitled is only 6% on the total compensation amount. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A.No.2895 of 2007 is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,00,000/- from Rs.3,98,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The M.A.C.M.A.No.2042 of 2009 is partly allowed only to the extent of reducing the interest on the awarded amount from 7.5% to 6% P.A. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:17-11-2011 Ksp