THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2593 of 2003 Dated 30th September, 2010 Between: Shaik Mazeed …Appellant And 1.J.Harnadha Babu and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.A.Rajendra Babu Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 3: None appeared Counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 4: Mr.V.Venkatarami Reddy The Court made the following: Order: The unfortunate appellant, who lost his precious limb of right hand upto elbow and is thereby rendered unfit to be a heavy motor vehicles driver, has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short ‘the Tribunal) vide award, dated 03-01-2003, in MVOP.No.432 of 1999. Since this appeal is confined to the issue relating to the quantum of compensation, it is not necessary for this Court to refer to the manner in which the accident has taken place. It will suffice to note that lorry bearing registration No.AP 7T 4784, which the appellant was driving, was dashed by another lorry bearing registration No.TN 45E 7830, which was insured with respondent No.2, resulting in severe injuries to the appellant. After being treated in the Government Hospital at Erode, Tamilnadu, for one day, the appellant was shifted to a private nursing home of one Dr.Y.Lakshmana Swamy, who was examined as PW.2, and has undergone surgeries. The appellant filed the above-mentioned claim petition claiming, in all, a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The Tribunal, after considering the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, awarded the compensation as under: Rs.10,000/- towards medicines, treatment, attendant expenses and incidental charges as against the claim of Rs.60,000/-; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering as against the claim of Rs.15,000/- and; Rs.1,26,000/- towards loss of future earnings as against the claim of Rs.3,20,000/-. The fact that the appellant’s right hand upto elbow was amputated is not in dispute. PW.2, in his evidence, has categorically stated that several surgeries were conducted to prevent the amputation of the right hand of the appellant, but eventually amputation had to be resorted to. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence regarding medical expenses, which includes Ex.A.3- disability certificate issued by PW.2 wherein he has certified that the appellant has roughly spent about Rs.60,000/- towards treatment and purchase of medicines, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- on the reasoning that PW.2 has not filed any record of accounts maintained by him and the audited accounts. In my opinion, the Tribunal has made a pedantic and unreasonable approach in insisting on production of accounts, ignoring the ground realities and the enormity of the injuries suffered by the appellant leading to amputation of his right hand. As is held by the apex Court consistently, the Tribunals need to make a fair and reasonable approach in appreciating the evidence in cases arising out of accident claims. In this regard, the Tribunals must exhibit a pragmatic and realistic approach rather than insisting on strict proof as in adversarial litigation. A person, who is in distress, is not expected to maintain record for every expenditure he incurs. In the very nature of things, it is reasonable to presume that an accident victim receiving serious injuries would have incurred considerable expenditure for the purpose of receiving treatment and other medical expenses. In the teeth of the undeniable fact that the appellant was treated as inpatient in the hospital of PW.2 for not less than 3 months and was subjected to repeated surgeries before his right hand was amputated, the Tribunal was totally unjustified in insisting on the audited accounts and other records of the said hospital. Even at the time when the accident has taken place in the year 1999, it would not have been possible for the appellant to manage multiple surgeries with a meagre expenditure of Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, on the admitted facts of the case, the Tribunal ought to have awarded the appellant a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medicines, treatment, attendant expenses and incidental charges. Coming to the head of loss of income, Ex.A.3- disability certificate issued by PW.2 shows that the appellant has lost his right hand upto elbow and that he is not fit for driving. P.W.2, in his evidence, deposed that while the disability pertaining to the whole body was 70%, having regard to the nature of the avocation of the appellant, his disability is 100%. Nothing is elicited from this witness to discredit his testimony. By losing the most vital limb viz., the right hand, the appellant is virtually rendered useless at a very young age of 34 years. The appellant is not shown to be educated for securing an alternative employment. As rightly observed by the Tribunal even if an artificial limb is arranged that would only be for a cosmetic purpose. The appellant has, thus, lost his livelihood on account of the accident. In my opinion, the Tribunal should have made a rational and liberal approach in assessing his loss of income. Even if a sum of 50,000/- per annum is taken as the notional income of the appellant at the time of the accident, as per the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal ought to have used the multiplier of 16 by following the judgment in Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. On such computation, the appellant is entitled to around Rs.2,20,000/- towards compensation. In my opinion, the minimum compensation that could be granted to the appellant is not less than Rs.3 lakhs. In the light of the above findings, award, dated 03- 01-2003, passed by the Tribunal in MVOP.No.432 of 1999 is modified by enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,46,000/- to Rs.3 lakhs. The appellant is entitled to interest @ 6% p.a., on the enhanced compensation from the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 30th September, 2010 lur [1] 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC)