THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.87 of 2009 Date:01.3.2011 Between: V. Ramulu (died) & V. Lakshmi (wife) Appellant. And 1. K. Gonaiah alias Chinna Gonaiah 2. The Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, rep by its Divisional Manager, Hyderabad Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR MACMA No.87 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award and decree dated 19.6.2008 passed in O.P.No.2493 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Huyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Originally, this appeal was preferred by the 1st appellant who was a sole claimant before the Tribunal, since he died during the pendency of the appeal, his wife was brought on record as the second appellant as per the orders of this Court dated 23.7.2009 in MACMAMP No.3706 of 2009. Therefore, the 1st appellant will be referred to as ‘deceased’ herein after for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 11.9.2006, at about 1.00 P.M., the deceased was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 23V 9232, being driven by one B. Ramulu when the said auto reached Kanukunta cross roads in the village limits of Gummadidala, Medak District, the driver of the said auto drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, as a result of which, the said auto turned turtle and the deceased sustained grievous injuries i.e., compression fracture of T-12 with spinal cord contusion and serviur thecal sac compression. Operation was done and urinary catheter was arranged for passing urine. The deceased claimed a total compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards loss of earnings, medical expenses and pain and suffering etc. The owner of the auto i.e., the 1st respondent remained exparte. The Insurance Company/2nd respondent contested the matter and filed a counter and denied the material averments made by the deceased. It is also their case that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the auto and that it is for the claimants to prove the loss of earnings and medical expenses. The Tribunal framed the necessary issues for trial. On behalf of the deceased, he himself was examined as P.W.1 and P.Ws.2 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked and Exs.X1 to X4 were marked. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that the deceased sustained grievous injuries, injury to spinal cord and that he is entitled to compensation for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- towards permanent disability and pain and suffering and Rs.58,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.4,58,000/-. Contending that the awarded amount is insufficient, and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the total amount claimed by the claimant, the claimant filed this appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have followed the multiplier method and income at Rs.9,000/- per month and ought to have taken 100% notional disability as the deceased was suffering from paraplegia i.e., non-function of lower limbs and not in control over natural calls. It is also his submission that the Tribunal awarded a reasonable amount towards pain and suffering. Sri K. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company, submitted that since the deceased was working as a labourour, his income should be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also his submission that since the multiplier method has to be applied, the question of awarding Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of permanent disability and for pain and suffering does not arise. It is also his submission that since the claimant died, the question of awarding future medical expenses does not arise. The only point that arises for consideration is as to what is just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded in this case and whether multiplier method should be applied? It is settled law that the Tribunal have to followed the multiplier method by arriving at the just and reasonable compensation. It is not in dispute that the deceased was aged about 23 years. So in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier applicable to the persons aged about 23 years is ‘18’. Admittedly, the claimant suffered Paraplegia i.,e., non- functioning of the lower limbs and he had no control over the calls of nature. In view of the same, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in case between NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., V. CHARLIE AND ANOTHER[2], 100% functional disability has to be taken for determining the loss of earnings. Now coming to the aspect of the income of the deceased, the deceased himself was examined as P.W.1. He had deposed that he was working as mason and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. The only suggestion given to the deceased was that he was not earning Rs.6,000/- per month. According to P.W.2, the deceased was earning Rs.6,000/- by working as a mason. Sri P. Ramakrishna Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment in case between LAXMI DEVI AND OTHERS[3], wherein, the Apex Court observed that an unskilled labourour can easily earn Rs.100/- per day. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case between P. YESHODAMMA AND OTHERS V. T. BUCHI REDDY AND ANOTHER[4], wherein the income of the labourour was taken at Rs.100/- per day. The accident in that case occurred on 19.4.2001. In this case, the accident occurred on 11.9.2006. It is submitted that an experienced mason may be earning Rs.150/- to 200/- per day. Since the deceased was aged 23 years and though he may be working as mason, he cannot be treated as an experienced mason. So in the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to take his income at Rs.120/- per day. Thus, his monthly income comes to Rs.3,600/- and 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses. If 1/3rd is deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.2,400/- per month and the annual loss of earnings comes to Rs.28,800/-. If ‘18’ multiplier is applied, the total loss of earnings come to Rs.5,18,400/-. As far as the medical expenses are concerned, it appears that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.58,000/- basing on the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal and there is no need to disturb the same. As the far as the future medical expenses are concerned, since the deceased died on 13.4.2009, I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.20,000/- till the date of his death. In the circumstances, I consider it just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs.5,600/- towards transportation charges and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,70,000/-. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed holding that the appellant is entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- and on enhanced compensation 6% interest from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.2493 of 2006, dated 19.6.2008 stands modified accordingly. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:01.3.2011 mrb [1] AIR 2009 SC 3104 [2] (2005) 10 Supreme Court cases 720 [3] 2008 ACJ 1488 [4] 2006 ACJ 414