HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1813 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the order in O.P. No.1283 of 1999 dated 05-11-2002 passed by the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases – cum – V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking enhanced compensation. 2. The relevant facts, in brief, are as under: (a) On 01-09-1999 at abut 8-30 AM, while the claimant was going on a scooter as a pillion rider from Hyderabad to Sangareddy, on the way near Lakaram Gate, Rudraram, jeep bearing No.APB-7448 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and at high speed, dashed the scooter, due to which, claimant sustained grievous injuries resulting in amputation of his right leg. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads. (b) Respondent No.1, owner of the jeep, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – insurance company filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 3. Based on the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 01-09-1999 at about 8-30 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.APB 7448 ? 2. Whether the petitioner (claimant) is entitled for compensation amount for the injuries sustained by him in the above said accident, if so, to what amount ? 3. To what relief ? 4. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the insurance company, RWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. 5. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,15,200/- with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal. Though the insurance company disputed its liability before the Tribunal, no appeal is filed by it. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant Sri P. Rama Kirshna Reddy and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – insurance company Sri E. Venugopal Reddy and perused the material on record. 7. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is appropriate ? 8. According to the case of the claimant, at the time of accident, he was 23 years old and was working as contract labourer in a company Viz., ITW Signode Private Limited and earning a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 9. But, the Tribunal did not accept his plea with regard to earning of Rs.3,000/- per month by way of salary and treating him as a labourer, assessed his income at Rs.40/- per day and Rs.1,200/- per month, which comes to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Accordingly, taking into consideration Ex.A-7 disability certificate showing the disability of the claimant as 60% due to amputation of his right leg and Ex.A-9, transfer certificate, as per which, claimant was aged 23 years as on the date of accident, by applying multiplier 18, which is the appropriate for the age group of the claimant, awarded Rs.1,55,200/- (Rs.14,400/- x 18 / 60%) towards compensation for 60% disability apart from Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and other incidental expenses etc. Thus, the Tribunal granted a total compensation of Rs.2,15,200/-. 10. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is low and the income of the petitioner was Rs.3,000/- per month, but the Tribunal has taken his income as Rs.1,200/- per month though Ex.A-10 shows that he was earning a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. 11. A reading of the evidence of PW.1 would show that Ex.A-10 is false certificate. It shows that claimant was working even on the date of issuance of Ex.A-10 certificate on 20-02-2002. It is not known and not explained as to how he was working even after amputation of his right leg as a laboruer, though it is not impossible. Further, his evidence is different, as he deposed that till the date of accident he worked in the company of ITW Signode India Private Limited for six months, but there is no reference in Ex.A-10 about that company at all. Thus, Ex.A-10 is, obviously, an incorrect certificate and cannot be relied upon. 12. However, income of the claimant can be taken at Rs.50/- a day and Rs.1,500/- per month, instead of Rs.1,200/- per month, and it comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. As the claimant was 23 years old as on the date of accident as per Ex.A-9 transfer certificate and the disability suffered by him due to the accident is 60% as per Ex.A-7 disability certificate, which are not in dispute, and multiplier 18 is appropriate for the age group of the claimant, if the annual income of Rs.18,000/- is multiplied with 18, it comes to Rs.3,24,000/- and out of which 60% of the amount comes to Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs.18,000/- x 18 / 60%). At this rate, compensation towards disability of 60% suffered by the claimant can be enhanced by another Rs.40,000/-. 13. Accordingly, compensation is enhanced by another Rs.40,000/- awarding total compensation of Rs.2,45,200/-, which include compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities and medical expenses, extra nourishment and incidental charges etc. However, rate of interest on the enhanced compensation of Rs.40,000/-alone shall be at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. 14. It is directed that the enhanced amount of compensation shall be kept in fixed deposit in a nationalized bank. He can withdraw 50% of the principal amount only after two years from today and the remaining 50% two years thereafter. 15. With the above modifications, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 25, 2010. PV