HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.373 of 2007 and C.M.A.No.1160 of 2010 COMMON JUDGMENT: C.M.A.No.373 of 2007 is preferred by United India Insurance Company Limited aggrieved by the order and decree dated 10-03- 2005 in O.P.No.1637 of 2002 while the claimant therein filed C.M.A.No.1160 of 2010 dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 02-06-2002 Dulipala Sivarama Krishna was standing at the Public Telephone Booth at Jaya Bharathi Apartment and a crane bearing No.APU-8881 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the petitioner resulting in injuries to him. He filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the crane involved in the accident. The Tribunal after considering the oral evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-12 on behalf of the injured and Ex.B-1 c.c. of the insurance policy on behalf of respondents in OP, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crane by its driver, and awarded compensation of Rs.2,55,993/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation, by holding that the owner and insurer of the crane are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, both the claimant and insurer filed the above appeals. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the insurance company and learned counsel appearing for the claimant and perused the record. 4. The finding of the Tribunal as to the rash and negligent driving of the crane is not disputed. Coming to the quantum of compensation, it is seen from the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 and also Exs.A-7, A-11 and A-12 that the claimant was working in Vijaya Electricals Limited by the date of accident and drawing net salary of Rs.2,745/- per month and as such, his annual income works out to Rs.32,940/-. PW-2 is the Doctor attached to Apollo Hospital where the claimant had undergone treatment and the said Doctor stated that the claimant suffered 35% permanent disability and that the foot of the injured is crushed, all bones are exposed and there is loss of skin. Thus, the net loss of earnings on account of permanent disability works out to Rs.11,529/- (35/100 x 32,940). As per Exs.A-2 and A-4, the claimant was aged 25 years as on the date of accident and in the circumstances, there is no reason to take a different view and the multiplier appropriate to 25 years age of the deceased is '17'. Having regard to the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has rightly calculated the loss of earnings on account of permanent disability. 5. PW-2 Doctor had stated that the claimant cannot stand for prolonged period, cannot walk long distance and cannot sit properly and that he had undergone treatment in Apollo Hospital for five days. Having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant and period of treatment, the Triunal has rightly granted Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal had relied upon Ex.A-8, bunch of medical bills, and grnted Rs.44,000/- towards medicines and treatment, which appears to be just and reasonable having regard to the nature of injuries and the permanent disability suffered by the claimant. In order to get back to normal health, the claimant will have to take extra- nourishment and having regard to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the permanent disability, I am inclined to granted Rs.10,000/- as claimed by him and as such, the compensation under this head is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-, instead of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal granted Rs.1,000/- towards transportation, which is just and reasonable. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the insurance company is dismissed while the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,60,993/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of petition till payment. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 22-07-2010 bsc