HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4548 of 2004 DATED: 28.01.2010 BETWEEN: K.Govind …Appellant And Ramakanth and another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4548 of 2004 JUDGMENT:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-injured claimant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2-insurance company. 2. This appeal is filed against the order, dated 02.09.2004 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.P.No.784 of 1996. 3. Challenge to the order by the appellant is against quantum of compensation. In regard to the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in the petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act the learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs. 45,970-80 ps, which is sought to be enhanced in this appeal by the injured claimant. 4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the Tribunal having arrived at the conclusion that the monthly income of the appellant is Rs.2,000/- and he sustained 40% permanent disability, granted Rs.45,970-80ps which is grossly inadequate, not just and reasonable and therefore, it is required to be enhanced. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company would submit that the compensation awarded is just and reasonable and needs no interference by this Court. 6. PWs3 and 4, the doctors working in Osmania General Hospital, who attended the appellant deposed that the appellant sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, which ultimately resulted in 40% of permanent disability. Ex.A.10- disability certificate also discloses that the appellant sustained 40% of permanent disability. Further, it also indicates that the appellant underwent two operations on 11.05.1996 and 12.05.1997 in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Therefore, the appellant was subjected to prolonged medical treatment and had undergone lot of mental agony and bodily pain. However, the appellant is not able to establish that after the fracture sustained by him in the accident, he was removed from his employment in Hari Krishna Battery Works, Bahadurpura as contended by him. Therefore, it is not possible to award compensation by applying multiplier method because there is no practical difficulty for the appellant to continue in the same job. 7. However, the compensation granted by the Tribunal under various heads, which is disclosed from the award passed by it does not seem to be just and reasonable. In view of the fact that the claimant was aged 20 years on the date of accident and sustained 40% of permanent disability, an amount of Rs.35,000/- is granted towards permanent disability and loss of earnings. For pain and suffering instead of amount of Rs.12,000/-, an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be granted. Further, a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards extra nourishment. This apart, an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards loss of amenities in life. The amounts granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses of Rs.3970.80ps and loss of earnings of Rs.4,000/- during the period of hospitalization and the amount of Rs.1,000/- granted towards transport to hospital being reasonable need no interference in this appeal. The petitioner is entitled for total compensation of Rs.83,970.80ps. The enhancement would therefore, be Rs.38,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ R. KANTHA RAO,J Date:28.01.2010 kvrm HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.4548 of 2004 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2010