IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.608 of 2006 Between: The New India Assurance Company Ltd., represented by its Branch Manager, Chandranagar, Hyderabad .. Appellant AND Bandipalli Srinivas Goud and others .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P. No.444 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, dated 11-11-2004. The factual background for the appeal is that the 1st respondent herein was going on a Suzuki motor cycle on 27-06-2001 when in the outskirts of Alugunoor, lorry No.AP 11T 9032, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the motor cycle. The claimant sustained a crush injury on the right leg with a compound fracture of both the bones and was treated at Government hospital, Karimnagar and NIMS, Hyderanad. In spite of continued treatment and surgeries, ultimately his right leg had to be amputated above the knee resulting in 60% permanent disability. The 1st respondent herein was under treatment since the accident up to 11-05-2002 and had engaged an attendant since 01-09-2001 at an expense of Rs.800/- per month. He had to spend Rs.2,00,000/- for the treatment and has to invest Rs.2,00,000/- for artificial leg. He was working as Field Assistant in Sri Venkateshwara Spun Pipe Industries, Husnabad for a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- per month apart from T.A., D.A. and bonus. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry due to loss of job and income. While the driver and owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer denied any negligence on the part of the lorry driver or existence of valid driving licence for the lorry driver or insurance coverage for the lorry. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.9 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by the first information report and charge-sheet Exs.A.1 and A.2 to conclude that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry resulted in the accident. Assessing the compensation, the Tribunal considered the corroboration afforded by the doctor as P.W.2 and the employer as P.W.3. The Tribunal accepted the medical bills to a tune of Rs.1,13,020/- while awarding Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal also took the salary of Rs.3,000/- per month as claimed by P.Ws.1 and 3 as the basis for assessing the loss of future earning capacity commensurate to 60% permanent disability on application of multiplier 18 for the age of 24 years. The Tribunal observed that the price of any artificial leg cannot be awarded in the absence of any evidence, while the loss of income for about 12 months should be awarded at Rs.36,000/-. Another sum of Rs.20,000/- is awarded towards loss of future amenities and the total compensation of Rs.5,83,000/- included Rs.3,88,820/- towards loss of future earnings. The joint and several liability of respondents 1 to 3 for the said amount was also held to be with interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till realization. The insurer challenges the said award in this appeal contending that there was no evidence concerning the employment or salary of the claimant and there was no physical loss of income to the claimant. No future prospects of the claimant, who was working as clerk under a private employer, were affected and the compensation awarded is excessive. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned standing counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Ram Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent are heard, while respondents 2 and 3 are unrepresented before this Court also. The grounds of appeal did not, in any manner, challenge the conclusions of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident and the joint and several liability of the driver, owner and insurer of the lorry to justly and adequately compensate the 1st respondent herein for the consequences of the accident. Coming to the quantum of compensation awarded, the age of the injured at 24 years as claimed is not contradicted by any other evidence and his occupation as a clerk in Sri Venkateshwara R.C.C. Spun Pipes Limited, Husnabad was corroborated by P.W.3 on behalf of the employer. His salary was stated to be Rs.3,000/- per month in Ex.A.7 salary certificate and by P.W.3 and there is no contrary evidence to doubt the occupation of the injured or his probable monthly income by the relevant time. Though P.W.3 did not produce any record of the company relating to the employment of the claimant or others, the witness was not patently summoned to produce any such records and even if there is some suspicion due to non-production of any such records, it cannot be equated to legal proof of the unacceptability of the claims of P.W.3 when P.W.3 deposed before the Tribunal on oath and when P.W.1 was claiming right from inception that he was so employed with P.W.3. The prolonged treatment of P.W.1 from 27-06-2001, the date of the accident till 11-05-2002 till after the amputation, was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.2 and the contents of Ex.A.4 medical certificate, Ex.A.5 discharge record and Ex.A.6 disability certificate. P.W.2 positively stated about the probable cost which P.W.1 had to incur for having an artificial limb, though the cost of the artificial limb itself was not specified in evidence and the Tribunal assessed the medical expenses on the basis of Ex.A.8 medical bills and the amount granted towards pain and suffering at Rs.25,000/- in case of such serious injuries leading to amputation, cannot be considered to be high. The award of Rs.36,000/- towards loss of income for 12 months is in tune with the period of treatment, which the injured had undergone and loss of future amenities of life compensated at Rs.20,000/- were reasonably compensated. Coming to the loss of future income or future earning capacity, the disability was certified by P.W.2 to be 60% permanent disability and corresponding loss of earning capacity presumed by the Tribunal cannot be considered to be not related to the nature of employment of P.W.1 as a clerk. The very nature of job of P.W.1 would require him to have capacity to move, which was drastically affected by the amputation of right leg. The calculation of loss of earning capacity at 60% in the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and on application of multiplier 18 is in tune with the principles laid down in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] and hence, on the whole, the compensation awarded cannot be considered as excessive. However, the learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the rate of interest adopted by the Tribunal at 9 per cent per annum and drew the attention of this Court to various decisions, wherein different rates of interest were adopted including Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (1 supra), where the Apex Court granted only 6 per cent per annum interest. The insurer is also a custodian of public funds and the length of time for which such interest has to be paid on the significant amount of compensation awarded, can also be kept in view in exercising the judicial discretion appropriately about the rate of interest. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, limiting the interest to 7.5 per cent per annum will subserve the ends of justice. Therefore, the award dated 11-11-2004 in O.P. No.444 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Karimnagar is modified only to the extent of the interest payable on the compensation by limiting it to 7.5 per cent per annum and otherwise, the impugned award is confirmed in all other respects. The civil miscellaneous appeal is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 06-09-2011 Svv [1] 2009 ACJ 1298