HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3106 OF 1998 DATED: 09.10.2009 BETWEEN: Renato Abhraham .. Appellant And P.Venkata Apparao and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.3106 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the Award dated 10.09.1998 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in M.V.O.P.no.126 of 1995. 2. The appeal is filed by the injured claimant seeking enhancement of compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 29.10.1994, wherein Mahindra van bearing No. AAS 1967 hit the motorcycle Kinetic Honda bearing No. AP 31 F 2462 on which the appellant – claimant, Mr V.Vinay Kumar and a little boy of two years were proceeding. 3. Against the claim of the appellant of Rs.8,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,28,000/-. Contending that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is not adequate, the appellant preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on either side. 5. The only point, therefore, arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation, if so to what extent? 6. The appellant claimant Mr V.Vinay Kumar completed his 10 + 2 and took modeling as his profession and was doing modeling in Visakhapatnam city. He participated in 15 modeling assignments as on the date of accident. According to him, for each assignment he was getting remuneration ranging between Rs.3,000/- and Rs.5,000/-. In three institutions, all reputed universities in USA, he was offered a seat for being trained as a commercial pilot with fairly reasonable amount of scholarship. He was expected to go abroad in December, 1994 to join in one of the institutions for training as a commercial pilot. But unfortunately, he received injuries and ultimately sustained permanent disability on account of injuries received in the accident. He hails from well placed family and his father was a marine Engineer. His evidence before the Tribunal as well as the medical, oral and documentary evidence adduced on his behalf revealed that after the accident he was admitted in CDR hospital, Visakhapatnam in the first instance and thereafter he was shifted to Pallavi Nursing Home where PW.2-Dr. N.S.Raju and PW.3-Dr N.V.Adinarayana, Professor of Orthopaedic in K.G. Hospital, Visakhapatnam treated him from 29.10.1994 to 11.12.1994 and was told to take bed rest for a period of three months. He sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and also fracture of the spine D12 L.111. He also sustained fracture to the left parietal bone anaenis (loss of sensation of smell). This apart, he also received punctured wound on the left elbow and multiple abrasions all over the body. Initially, he was treated by applying POP and subsequently PW.3 performed an operation on him. The fracture of both bones of left leg though united, ultimately resulted in shortening of lower limb by one inch. He experiencely pain while bending and riding bicycle. The disability was assessed at 45%, which is partial and permanent in nature. The medical opinion is conclusive on the aspect that he is no longer suitable for the profession of modeling. 7. The learned Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased notionally at Rs.10,000/- per month considering the present earnings and future prospects. The learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for all the injuries, Rs.25,000/- for loss of earnings during the period of treatment., Rs.50,000/- towards allowance to the attendant and thus granted total compensation of Rs.3,28,000/-. Though estimated the income of the appellant at Rs.10,000/- per month and accepted the disability assessed by the doctors at 45% the learned Tribunal did not compute the compensation basing on multiplier method. Therefore, it is essential to arrive at the compensation which is just and reasonable which has to be calculated basing on multiplier method and also it is expedient to award reasonable amounts under various heads for which the appellant is entitled to. 8. The monthly income of the deceased on average can be taken as Rs.6,000/- and his annual income comes to Rs.72,000/-. The appellant was aged 22 years on the date of accident and he sustained 45 % of permanent disability. The proper multiplier as per the Second Schedule is 17. The loss of earnings would be Rs.72,000/- x 17 x 45/100 = 5,50,800/-. The claimant is also entitled for an amount of Rs.30,000/- (Rs.6,000 x 5 months) towards loss of past earnings during the period of medical treatment. An amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted to him for extra-nourishment. Further a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards attendant charges. An amount of Rs.28,000/- granted by the tribunal towards medical expenses basing on the medical bills produced by the appellant needs no interference. A sum of Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards transport charges. However, towards pain and suffering an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted. In all, the claimant is entitled for Rs.6,83,800/-. The enhancement would be Rs.3,55,800/-. 9. In an appeal by the claimant for enhancement of compensation the appellate Court has to arrive at the compensation which is just and reasonable and for that purpose the monthly income arrived at in the appeal maybe less than that of which was notionally arrived at by the Tribunal and some lesser of amounts may also be awarded under some heads than that of the Tribunal. So the appellate Court is justified in either reducing the monthly income of the claimant or some amounts awarded by the Tribunal under certain specific heads. Thus, in this appeal, the appellant – claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.6,83,800/- which according to this Court is just and reasonable. However, the interest awarded by the tribunal below being on higher side and not in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 09.10.2009 kvrm