THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CM.A.No.920 of 2005 Dated: 27-01-2011 Between: B.Ravi Kumar ………..Petitioner and B.Narender and another …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.920 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is directed against the award dated 31-12-2003, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court-cum-Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hyderabd, in O.P.No.846 of 2000, filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident when he was travelling in an Auto bearing Regn. No.AP 13V 2495 and proceeding from Mehidipatnam to Sankarpally and when he reached near Kollore village, one Fiat 118 Car bearing Regn. No.AP 11F 2379 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and hit the auto from opposite direction, due to which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. 2. Before the Court below, 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 and documents of Exs.A-1 to A-7, awarded Rs.13,200/- towards special damages (Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.6,200/- towards medicines), and also awarded Rs.17,500/- towards general damages (Rs.12,500/- towards temporary disability and Rs.5,000/- towards fracture). Thus the petitioner was awarded a total sum of Rs.30,700/- (Rs.13,200/- (+) Rs.17,500/-). Not satisfied with the award passed by the Court below, the claimant-appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant was aged about 25 years and he was working as maistry and labourer at the time of accident. He further contended that as seen from Exs.A-4 and A-5, he sustained injuries and a fracture of lateral condyle and intercondylar eminence right tibia with fracture of right fibula and he was unable to attend his duties for about three months. Further, though the doctor who examined the appellant assessed the disability at 5% to 10%, the Tribunal awarded only an amount of 12,500/- under the head of temporary disability which is a very lesser amount regarding compensation granting towards disability. Therefore, he prays that at least 8% disability may be taken into consideration. He further contended that in view of the severity of the fracture and disability, the awards granted by the Tribunal towards fracture and loss of earnings also may be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for R-2 contended that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto but not due to the negligence of the driver of the car. However, the Tribunal awarded a reasonable compensation to the appellant and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the appellant sustained fracture and other injuries. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,000/- towards transportation and Rs.6,200/- towards medicines which, in my considered opinion, may not be interfered with and the same are confirmed. 8. So far as the award of Rs.12,500/- granted by the Tribunal towards temporary disability is concerned, the Tribunal has to consider Exs.A-3, Medical certificate and A-4, Discharge record issued by NIMS, wherein the doctor assessed the disability of the appellant as 8%. Further, the appellant was working as a maistry at the time of accident. If the income of the appellant is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month, and disability is taken as 8%, his monthly income comes to Rs.200/- per month. Then his annual income comes to Rs.2400/-. According to the age of the appellant at the time of accident i.e. 25 years, the correct multiplier to be adopted is ‘18’. Hence, the total loss of disability comes to Rs.43,200/- (2400/- (X) 18 = 43,200/-). In view of the same, the awards under the heads of loss of earnings and fracture can also be enhanced. Hence, an amount of Rs.6,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings is enhanced to Rs.7,500/- and an amount of Rs.5,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal towards fracture is also enhanced to RS.7,500/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.14,700/- (Rs.7,500/- (+) Rs.1,000/- (+) Rs.6,200/-) towards special damages and Rs.50,700/- (Rs.43,200/- (+) Rs.7,500/-) towards general damages, hence, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.65,400/-. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part holding that the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.34,700/- (Rs.65,400/- (-) Rs.30,700/-) as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.846 of 2000, dated 31-12-2003, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ January 27, 2011 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr