THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 2492 of 2001. JUDGEMENT I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent insurance company. This appeal is filed against the order dt 27.8.1993 in MVOP.No. 685 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Kadapa whereby and whereunder the Tribunal below awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the injured/claimant together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. On 7.6.1992 the appellant, who is an agricultural labourer was travelling in the lorry bearing No. APD 1690 and when the lorry reached Guvvalacheruvu Ghat Road, the driver of the lorry drove it in rash and negligent manner and consequently the lorry fell into a valley and in the accident the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal below recorded a finding that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question by its driver and thus the owner of the said vehicle and its insurer, the 2nd respondent herein are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the appellant. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company filed CMA.No. 39 of 1994 questioning the finding of the Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was travelling as a labourer in the lorry and under the old Act, he being not a third party, risk is not covered under the policy which is an Act policy and that the said appeal was ultimately dismissed by this Court and therefore the said finding having become final, the same need not be considered afresh. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether the Tribunal had erred in holding that the disability sustained by the appellant is not due to the injuries sustained by him in the alleged accident and that the amount of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is very low and it requires to be enhanced. Pw.2 the Civil Assistant Surgeon working in Headquarters hospital, Kadapa stated in his evidence before the Tribunal below that on 7.6.1992 the appellant was admitted in the Government Hospital with multiple injuries all over his body and subsequently he developed complications in functioning of limbs on left side of his body and he was shifted to Apollo hospital at Madras and subsequently he examined the appellant on 19.6.1993 and issued Ex:A.9 the disability certificate. His evidence further discloses that due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he was affected by paralysis on the left side and consequently the appellant is not in a position to attend to his normal work. Though, Pw.2 did not mention the percentage of disability, his evidence is clear on the aspect that the appellant cannot work as a labourer any longer and even if further treatment and physio therapy is given for a long time, the possibility of recovery is doubtful. According to Pw.2, there was an injury to the brain, which ultimately might have resulted in paralytic stroke. The Tribunal below examined the injuries mentioned on Ex:A.3 the injury certificate and opined that as there was no head injury, it cannot be accepted that there is any injury to the brain and therefore the paralysis sustained by the appellant might not be due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and consequently awarded an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the fracture of nasal bone which is grievous in nature and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses. I am of the considered view that the approach adopted by the Tribunal below is wholly misconceived and its decision is not rendered according to the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the evidence on record. From the evidence on record, it is clear that only after the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident, he developed complications on left side of his body and he was shifted to Super Speciality Hospital at Madras and that the paralytic stroke cannot be cured in spite of providing good quality of treatment. It is wrong to presume that merely because of absence of an external injury over the head, no damage would be caused to the brain. Due to the impact of the accident there may be injury to the brain more particularly when the face of the appellant was injured in the accident. From the evidence of Pw.2, it is clear that the appellant developed complications after he was admitted in the hospital with injuries sustained in the accident and his evidence further goes to show that the paralytic stroke suffered by the appellant was due to the impact of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Therefore, I hold that the appellant suffered paralysis due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident and due to the disability that he sustained, he was totally disabled to do any manual work. Pw.2 the doctor who issued Ex:A.9 the disability certificate did not mention about the percentage of disability but he had categorically stated that the appellant cannot work any longer as labourer. Therefore without any hesitation, the disability sustained by the appellant can be considered to be total. According to Ex:A.3, the medical certificate, the appellant was aged about 52 years as on the date of accident. In view of the fact that the accident occurred in the year 1992, the income of a labourer can be taken at Rs. 1200/- p.m. and it comes to Rs. 14,400/- p.a. As per the decision of the Supreme Court in Sarla Varma’s case [2009 (6) SCC 142], the relevant multiplier that is applicable to the age of the appellant is 11. The total loss of earnings of the appellant comes to Rs. 1,58,400/- ( 14,400 X 11). The amount of compensation of Rs. 5,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering being very low, the same is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, total compensation comes to Rs.1,78,400/-. However, the interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation being on higher side, the same is reduced to 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. With the above enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the interest, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J 07.04.2010. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO. C.M.A.No. 2492 of 2001. Dt.07.04.2010