IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1975 OF 2002. 28-01-2010. Between:- Harijana Anumanna .. Appellant And Abdulla Rahim Shariff and another ..Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant questioning the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is not adequate and seeking enhancement of the same. 2. This appeal has arisen out of the order passed in M.V.O.P.No.940 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool against the claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company. 4. The appellant, who is Mason by profession, received injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 02.07.1999 wherein a lorry bearing registration No.CAA 2368 belonging to respondent No.1 and which was insured with respondent No.2 was involved. Since the finding as to the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the appellant has not been challenged and became final, the said question does not require any consideration in this appeal and we are only concerned with the question as to whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is just and reasonable. 5. The appellant, who was examined as P.W.1., stated before the Tribunal that he is a Mason by profession and was earning Rs.100/- per day. P.W.3-another witness also stated before the Tribunal below in his evidence that the appellant was Mason by profession. However, P.W.3 did not state anything about the income, which the appellant was getting. The learned Tribunal, since there is no documentary proof regarding the income of the appellant, considered the same at Rs.50/- per day for the purpose of computing compensation. Thus, the annual income of the deceased was arrived at Rs.18,000/-. The learned Tribunal, having believed the version of the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.2 about the permanent disabilities sustained by the appellant, substituted its opinion to that of the Doctor as regards the percentage of disability. The Doctor assessed the disability at 30%, whereas the learned Tribunal expressed the view that as per the Manual For Evaluation Of Permanent Physical Impairment for Orthopaedic Surgeons, the shortening of one of the limbs is equivalent to 10% disability and as such, the disability can be considered only as 10% but not 30%, as pleaded by P.W.2, which is only erroneous in the opinion of this Court. The learned Tribunal ought not to have substituted its view to that of P.W.2-the Doctor who examined the appellant and issued the disability certificate with regard to the percentage of disability. However, the accident took place in the year 1999, the income of the appellant arrived at by the Tribunal at Rs.50/- per day being reasonable, need not be interfered with in this appeal. Thus, the compensation has to be computed in the following manner: The annual income of the appellant is Rs.18,000/- and the relevant multiplier is ‘13’. The loss of earnings of the appellant are 18,000x13x30/100=Rs.70,200. The other amounts awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of amenities in life being reasonable, do not require any interference in this appeal. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled for total compensation of Rs.99,975/- instead of Rs.53,175/-. The enhancement would be Rs.46,800/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 6. In the result, with the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ R. KANTHA RAO ,J 28th January 2010 AMD