THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.24 of 2001 Dated: 22nd January, 2010 Between: G.Damodar Reddy …Appellant / Petitioner AND S.M.A.Karamath And another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.24 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the award made in O.P.No.495 of 1997 dated 23.06.2000 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (‘the Tribunal’, for brevity) for enhancement of compensation. In this appeal, the parties are referred to as claimant and respondents. The claimant filed the petition under Section 166 read with Section 140(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (‘the Act’, for brevity) claiming a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees five lakh only) together with interest and costs. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.05.1997, when the claimant was at his tent house, a jeep bearing No. TN-55/6415 dashed him on account of which, he suffered fracture of the right leg short femur and injury to his left leg. He was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. As he suffered the injuries, he claimed a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- by way of amendment to his claim petition vide orders in I.A.No.1922 of 1999 dated 03.12.1999. The Tribunal formulated two issues i.e., as to whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep bearing No.TN-55/641; and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got examined P.W.2 and P.W.3. He also got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. The first respondent remained ex parte and the second respondent / Insurance Company contested the claim, but, no evidence was adduced on behalf of second respondent / Insurance Company. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, awarded an amount of Rs.1,99,858/- in total under different heads. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. I need not go into the issue regarding driving of vehicle in rash and negligent manner, as this appeal is filed seeking enhancement of compensation only, and as there is no appeal before by the Insurance Company. Heard both the counsel. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not just and adequate and the appellant is entitled for more compensation than what has been awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent / Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has awarded reasonable and just compensation under different heads. The point for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation; if so, to what amount. Ex.A-13 was filed by the claimant to show that he was running a tent house. But he did not adduce any evidence as regards his income from the tent house. The evidence of P.W.2 also does not support his claim as regards the income. But the fact remains that he had a tent house and it remained closed for a period of two years i.e. from 21.05.1997 to 30.06.1999. In the absence of any evidence with regard to the income, having regard to the fact that the claimant had a tent house, it can be presumed that the claimant was earning a reasonable amount for his livelihood and in my opinion, the Tribunal has rightly fixed an amount of Rs.1,500/- per month as his monthly income, after deducting all the expenses. As regards the treatment of the claimant, although he claimed an amount of Rs.1,20,000/-, he did not produce sufficient evidence in support of the said claim. He submitted medical bills to a tune of Rs.55,770/-, but he could not prove that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.9,950/-, which was allegedly paid to Ushamohan Hospital. The other documents also are not reliable, as rightly found by the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in my opinion, rightly awarded Rs.55,770/- towards medical expenses and Rs.6,000/- towards extra nourishment. Since the petitioner suffered fractures, the Tribunal has also rightly awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As regards the compensation towards continuing disability, it may be seen that the Doctor, who treated the petitioner, was examined as P.W.3. AS per his evidence, the petitioner suffered disability of 40%. As stated supra, the income of the claimant was taken as Rs.1,500/- per month and the disability is 40%, The age of the petitioner appears to be 40 years at the time of incident as the Tribunal applied 12.79% multiplier. Taking the age of the claimant at 40 years and following the second schedule of the Act, the multiplier 15 is applicable. In such an event, the claimant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.108,000/- as compensation towards 40% disability, whereas the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.92,088/- only. Hence, the claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.15,912/- (Rupees fifteen thousand nine hundred and twelve only). Thus, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.15,912/- rounded of to Rs.16,000/-. He is also entitled for interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, only on the enhanced amount. The award in this appeal is in addition to the award of the Tribunal in O.P.No.495 of 1997 dated 23.06.2000. Accordingly, the award dated 23.06.2000 made in O.P.No.495 of 1997 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, stands modified to the extent indicated above. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI January 22, 2010 Bvv