THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No:1014 of 2005 And M.A.C.M.A.No.1375 of 2010 C.M.A.No.1014 of 2005 BETWEEN: Rashad Pasha @ Rasheed Pasha S/o.Mahboob Ali R/o. Thandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Presently residing at Nallakunta, Hyderabad. APPELLANT AND 1. M/s. Naval and Company, rep. by Vijay Chordya R/o. Rayachoti Mandal, Cuddapah District, and another. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri Katta Lakshmi Prasad C.M.A.No.1375 of 2010 BETWEEN The New India Assuance Co. Ltd., Rep. by its Deputy Manager, Motor Third Party Claims Cell, Al-karim Trade Center, Ranigunj, Secunderabad. APPELLANT AND 1. Rashad Pasha @ Rasheed Pasha S/o.Mahboob Ali R/o. Thandur Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, Presently residing at Nallakunta, Hyderabad. RESPONDENTS Counsel for Petitioner: Smt. Kalpana Ekbote Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: Seeking further enhancement of compensation the appellant/injured filed C.M.A.No.1014 of 2005 and questioning the quantum of compensation the New India Assurance Company Limited, the second respondent in the O.P. filed C.M.A.Sr.No.29941 of 2005 against the order dated 28.02.2005 passed in O.P.No.400 of 2002 by the III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that claim petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the injured’) filed the above O.P. under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries and permanent disability sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 11.02.2002 at about 10.45 a.m., while he as a pillion rider and his friend were riding a cycle near railway gate on Tandur – Kodangal road, a lorry bearing No.AP 16U 1129 driven at high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed the cycle. As a result of which, the injured fell down from the cycle and was dragged to some distance. He sustained crush injury and compound fracture of right hand, injuries to left hand, head, legs and all over the body, and his cycle was completely damaged. Immediately the injured was shifted to Government hospital, Tandur and later he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, wherein he undergone operation to his right hand, which was amputated upto the shoulder. Accordingly, the police of Tandur P.S. registered a case in crime No.20/02 under Section 337 IPC. 3. It was the case of the injured that at the time of accident he was aged about 20 years and he was hale and healthy. He was doing masonry work in construction of houses in Tandur and used to earn Rs.5000/- p.m. Due to the injuries and amputation of his right hand, he became permanently disabled and lost his earnings and future prospects. He was not able to sit, stand and squat, and hence he engaged an attendant to look after him. He has spent more than Rs.50,000/- for his treatment. Hence he filed the present O.P. against the owner of the lorry and the Insurance Company. 4. The first respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments made in the petition regarding the injuries, disability sustained by the injured and the period of treatment taken by him, his age and income. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 11.02.2002 at about 10.45 a.m. due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.AP 16U 1129 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, the injured himself was examined as PW.1 and doctor, who treated the injured, was examined as PW.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B.1-Insurance Policey was marked. 6. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the injured, the Tribunal on Issue No.1 held that though the second respondent contended that the rider of the cycle and the injured contributed in the accident, and denied rash and negligence driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, but it did not examine the driver of the offending vehicle to deny the contentions of the injured or any other witness to prove the negligence on the part of the injured and his friend. Thus, there is no rebuttal evidence placed by the second respondent. Hence, the occurrence of accident and the injuries sustained by the injured in the accident were not denied. No contra evidence has been brought on record to disbelieve the evidence of the petitioner. PW.1 has categorically deposed about the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and filed Exs.A.1-F.I.R copy, A.2-charge sheet, A.3-wound certificate, A.4- discharge summary issued by the Osmania General Hospital, A.6- bunch of medical bills, A.8-disability certificate issued by the medical board and A.9-SSC certificate showing his date of birth. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and held the issue in favour of the claim petitioner. 7. on Issue No.2, since amputation of right hand was done and the injuries sustained by him to other parts of the body were fully healed, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and suffering. Apart from that considering Ex.A.6-bunch of medical bills for a total sum of Rs.1,165/-, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal, relying on the guidelines provided in Schedule II of the Act, which provide that the annual income of a person shall be treated as Rs.15,000/- in the absence of proof of actual income, considered the income of the petitioner as Rs.15,000/- and taking into consideration 80% disability, arrived at Rs.12,000/- as annual income of the claim petitioner, and awarded Rs.10,000/- towards actual loss of income. Basing on Ex.A.9-SSC certificate, the Tribunal applied multiplier ‘17’ and awarded a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- (12,000 x 17) towards future loss of income, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, Rs.20,000/- towards loss of prospects of future marital life, Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges, and Rs.6000/- towards transportation expenses. In total the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,20,000/- towards compensation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/injured contended that the Court below, in spite of filing all the relevant documents erred in awarding meager compensation towards pain and suffering, loss of amenities, loss of prospects of marriage, attendant charges, and transportation charges. He also contended that the Tribunal awarded less rate of interest. 10. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. 11. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry. It is also true that as per Ex.A.9 the injured was aged about 20 years at the time of accident. Though the appellant stated in the claim petition that he is not able to sit, squat or walk, but he admitted in his cross-examination that he is able to walk. Further, amputation of right hand was done and the injuries sustained by him to other parts of the body were fully healed. He filed Ex.A.3-wound certificate, Ex.A.6- medical bills and Ex.A.8-disability certificate showing the disability sustained by him as 80%. The appellant claimed that he was a mestri and used to earn Rs.5000/-. But unless a worker has work on all the days in a month it is not possible for any ordinary worker to earn Rs.5000/- p.m., and the income which a labour can earn depends on his skills. In the absence of any evidence about the skill and the work, in my considered view, it would be just and proper to take the earnings of the appellant/claimant as Rs.2000/- p.m. and (Rs.2000 x 12) Rs.24,000/- per year. Taking into consideration 80% disability his annual income comes to Rs.19,200/-. Since the injured was aged about 20 years as per Ex.A.9-SSC certificate, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma V Delhi Transport Corporation and Another[1] the correct multiplier would be ‘18’. Thus the net income comes to Rs.3,45,600/- (19,200 x 18). Since the appellant suffered injuries all over the body and his right hand was amputated, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future amenities. In total the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.3,75,600/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is allowed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ (GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.) 15th July, 2010 Js. [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129