IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.406 of 2007 Between: The New India Assurance Co., Ltd., rep., by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Opp: Z.P. Office, Subashnagar, Nizamabad. … Appellant And Shaik Rasool & another … Respondents Counsel for the appellant : Sri R. Sridhar Counsel for respondent No.1 : Sri S. Surender Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MOTOR ACCIDENT CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.406 of 2007 ORDER:- This appeal arises out of award dated 31.10.2006 in O.P.No.79 of 2002 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (V ADJ) at Nizamabad (for short, “the Tribunal”). Respondent No.1, the New India Assurance Company Limited in the said O.P., is the appellant. The appellant felt aggrieved by the Tribunal’s award, whereby it has assessed the total compensation payable to respondent No.1 at Rs.1,05,000/- for the injuries he suffered in the accident that has taken place involving auto rickshaw bearing registration No.AP 25 T 9008, insured with the appellant. Since the appellant is not disputing the finding regarding rash and negligent driving, it is not necessary for this Court to refer in detail to the manner in which the accident has occurred. At the hearing, Sri R. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal committed a serious error in awarding Rs.70,000/- towards loss of income. Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, sought to defend the award. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the record. Though respondent No.1, who was aged 15 years (minor) at the time of accident, claimed that he was doing business in vegetables and milk and earning Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal rejected the said plea and found that respondent No.1 being a boy of 15 years, the said plea cannot be accepted and that he will be considered as a non- earning member. Following clause (6) of II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has taken the notional income at Rs.1,500/- per month. The Tribunal has further held that the consequences of right maxilla fracture sustained by respondent No.1 continues for about 10 years because in males growth of bones will be upto 22 years or so and therefore, there is no likelihood of complete healing of maxilla fracture within 7 years and assessed the loss of income at Rs.70,000/-. In addition to that, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.16,000/- for suffering pain and mental agony @ Rs.400/- per day for 40 days. The Tribunal added another sum of Rs.16,000/- towards extra diet, medical expenses, attendants etc. A perusal of the oral evidence of PW.4, Orthopedic Surgeon of Amrutha Laxmi Multi Specialty Hospital, Nizamabad, shows that he has treated respondent No.1 from 03.12.2001 and discharged him on 06.12.2001 and he found three injuries of which injury Nos.1 and 3 were simple in nature and injury No.2, namely, swelling and ecchymosis over right maxilla was grievous in nature. PW.4 has not mentioned in his evidence that the nature of the grievous injury is such that it caused any permanent disability to respondent No.1 or that on account of the said injury, respondent No.1 will be unable to attend to his work in future. The question of assessment of loss of future income in case of injuries would arise if the claimant suffers either permanent or partial disablement. Without there being any evidence on record, the Tribunal appeared to have imported its personal knowledge on the nature of the injury and assumed that respondent No.1 would not be able to work for about 7 years. This finding, in my opinion, is totally without basis. Therefore, award of compensation under this head is impermissible. In the light of the above finding, ordinarily, respondent No.1 would not have been entitled to the sum of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, but under the interim orders of this Court, the appellant has deposited 50% of the compensation awarded. As respondent No.1 is stated to have withdrawn the compensation without furnishing security, I deem it appropriate to modify the award by limiting the compensation to the amount already deposited by the appellant and withdrawn by respondent No.1. Subject to the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the appeal, MACMAMP.No.846 of 2007 is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 17.02.2010 ES