IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4042 of 2003 Between: Boya Ramakrishnudu ..... APPELLANT(S) AND G.Seshi Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4042 of 2003 ORDER: Appellant filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.799 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Court, Kurnool, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, towards the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 28.12.1999 at about 09.00 p.m. while he along with another person was returning to the village Allagadda from Jammalamadugu on a moped bearing No.AP21-D-1844 and when reached outskirts of Chinna Kandukur village, a Jeep bearing No.AP21-D-0789, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came in opposite direction, at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner dashed the moped resulting injuries to him. He also claimed that he was aged 32 years by the date of accident; was hale and healthy; was earning Rs.72,000/- per annum by doing fruits business; sustained fracture to his left leg in the accident and, though took treatment, could not regain the normal movements of his leg; his left leg shortened because of the injury; spent Rs.80,000/- for treatment and other expenses and requires treatment in future also. First respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal and second respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.AP.21D.0789, resulting in injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation and, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.14 were marked. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP21-D-0789, awarded Rs.35,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization as compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the present appeal is by the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellant is entitled to and there is no need to enhance the same. Now the point for consideration is to what compensation the appellant is entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards the injury to his left leg; Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards transportation; and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; making a total of Rs.35,000/-. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the appellant sustained a fracture to his left leg and P.W.2, the Doctor, has assessed his partial and permanent disability to be 15%. The appellant though claimed Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses, since he could not establish the same, the Tribunal granted only Rs.25,000/- as compensation payable under that head in a lump sum. The appellant claims that he was aged 32 years by the date of accident and was earning Rs.72,000/- per annum by doing fruit business. The annual earnings of the appellant can be safely taken to be Rs.24,000/-. Since this is a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age of 32 years is ‘16’. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.24,000/- x 15% x 16 = Rs.57,600/- towards medical expenses and loss of future earnings, which can be rounded off to Rs.60,000/-. I do not wish to interfere with the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the same shall remain unaltered. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses and loss of future earnings + Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.2,000/- towards transportation + and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; in all a sum of Rs.70,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.70,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 12th August 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104