THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A. C.M.A.No. 395 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the order in O.P.No. 286 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur dated 31.10.2007, the present C.M.A. is filed. Appellant is the claimant in the lower Court. The claimant filed Petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident dated 19.11.2005. After full pledged trial, the tribunal below while evaluating the evidence on record, granted compensation of Rs. 74,500/- against the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/-. Aggrieved with the said finding, the present C.M.A. is filed for enhancement of compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the Order of the tribunal below is sustainable? The brief averments of the petition in O.P.No. 286 of 2006 in nutshell reads as follows: The impugned claimant is aged about 45 years, earning Rs. 6,100/- in his ground nut business and also agriculturist owning 13 acres of land. While so, on 19.11.2005 the petitioner along with his relative traveling on Hero Honda motor byke bearing No. AP 02 J 5133 being driven by the petitioner and when they reached near Batlakothapalli Cross roads, a jeep bearing No. AP 02 F 5292 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor bike as a result of which the petitioner and the pillion rider fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, petitioner was taken to the Government Hospital, Anantapur and from there to K.K. Nursing Home, Anantapur and he was inpatient in the said Nursing Home from 19.11.2005 to 4.12.2005. A case in Crime No. 125 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the offending jeep. 1st respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is District Collector, Ananthapur, as vehicle belongs to the Government. Claim was made against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. 1st respondent filed counter and denied the averments made in the petition and alleged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and that compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. 2nd respondent filed counter and alleged that according to the First Information Report allegations an unidentified vehicle dashed the petitioner’s vehicle and therefore, it is a hit and run case and therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction. It is also alleged that the 1st respondent entrusted the jeep to third party and it is violation of policy conditions and the driver of the offending vehicle is not having valid driving license and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. On behalf of the petitioner while examining himself as P.W- 1, examined P.Ws.2 and 3 the Doctors, who treated him for the injuries sustained in the accident. He also filed Exs.A-1 to A-10, Exs.X-1 and X-2. Ex.B-1 is the copy of the Insurance policy which reads that the offending jeep had valid insurance coverage at the time of the accident. The lower Court while evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 granted compensation of Rs.74,500/-. Admittedly, P.W-1 is a direct witness and the injured. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of the First Information Report and Ex.A-2 is the attested copy of the wound certificate. As seen from Ex.A-2, police after due investigation filed charge sheet noting that accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep. The lower Court also held that the accident was due to rash and negligent of the driver of the offending vehicle. Therefore, I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the lower Court on that score. The lower Court discussed the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at issueNo.2. According to P.W-1, he sustained following injuries in the accident. In support of his evidence he filed Ex.A-2 wound certificate. 1. Lacerated wound of the skull, 2. Deformity of the right leg. Fracture of lower 1/3rd. The lower Court while taking into consideration the gravity of the said injuries granted a compensation of Rs. 16,500/- towards the pain and suffering. Admittedly, the 2nd injury deformity on the right leg and fracture of lower 1/3rd. In any event, with this the petitioner should have suffered pain and therefore, granting of Rs. 16,500/- as compensation towards the pin and suffering as held by the lower Court is justified. It is the case of the petitioner that he was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month and owned 13 acres of agricultural land and filed Exs.A-9 and A-10. During the evidence, petitioner admitted that the lands under Exs.A-9 and A-10 are belongs to his father. The lower Court while assessing his evidence granted a sum of Rs. 3,000/- as compensation for three months @ Rs. 1,000/- per month. But, as seen from his evidence and also on the back ground agricultural property of P.W-1, the aforesaid compensation granted for the loss of income of three months @ Rs.1,000/- per month is very meager and therefore, fixing of Rs. 2,000/- as income per month is just and reasonable in the present case on hand. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 6,000/- is granted as compensation for the loss of income for three months @ Rs. 2,000/- against the award of Rs. 3,000/- granted by the lower Court. While placing reliance on Ex.A-7 bunch of medical bills totaling for Rs. 38,000/-, the lower Court granted a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards the medical expenses. P.W-2 Dr. B. Jagan Mohan Reddy, Orthopedic Surgeon and Consultant to K.K. Nursing Home gave evidence. Accordingly, he conducted surgery on petitioner and marked Ex. X-1 the case sheet and Ex.X-2 the x-rays. P.W-3 Dr. A. Jagannath gave evidence on the disability of the injured. According to P.W-3, he treated the petitioner and conducted interlocking nalling system for fracture injury to right leg of the injured. So, considering the injuries sustained by the petitioner including his treatment granting a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards the medical expenses instead of Rs. 20,000/- awarded towards the medical expenses by the lower Court is justified. The lower Court assessed the disability of the petitioner at 25% and granted a compensation of Rs. 33,000/- being 25% of the total net income. According to the petition, the age of the petitioner was 46 years, according to Ex.A-1 First Information Report, the age of the petitioner was shown as 50 years, but according to wound certificate, age of the petitioner is shown as 53 years. As per charge sheet, the age of the petitioner was shown as 50 years. The lower Court held that the petitioner should be in between 50 to 55 years of age. Therefore, relevant multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner is 11. So, the total income is arrived at Rs. 24,000 x 11 which comes to Rs. 2,64,000/-. According to Ex.A-6 the disability of petitioner is estimated at 25%. So, the petitioner is granted compensation for permanent disability at Rs. 66,000/-being 25% of the total income. The lower Court also granted Rs. 2,000/- as extra nourishment and transport charges. Therefore, aforesaid finding needs no interference. With this modification, the C.M.A. is allowed granting compensation of Rs. 1,09,500/- as under: Rs. 16,500/- Pain and suffering Rs. 25,000/- Medical expenses Rs. 66,000/- Permanent disability of 25% Rs. 2,000/- Extra nourishment and transport charges. ----------------------- Rs.1,09,500/- Total ------------------------ The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. ___________________ 25.3.2011 CHV