THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.NO.1297 OF 2003 JUDGMENT The claimants filed this appeal against the order and decree dated 06-1-2003 passed in M.V.O.P.No. 256 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-, as against which the Tribunal awarded Rs. 91,750/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.12.1999 at about 9AM while the first petitioner in OP was proceeding in the first respondent’s lorry as loading and unloading coolie along with other coolies with load and when they reached near Assist India at Rayavaram Village, Markapur Mandal, Prakasam District, the driver of the lorry bearing No. AAA 2939 driving the vehicle at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle resulting which the lorry fell down and due to which, the first petitioner and some others received injuries. The first petitioner received fracture injury to his spinal card and thereafter he was taken to the Government hospital, Markapur where he undertook treatment as inpatient from 19.12.1998 to 21.12.1998. Subsequently, he was shifted to the Government General Hospital, Guntur, where he underwent treatment as inpatient from 21.12.1998. Due to the fracture injury to his spinal card he cannot sit and stand and that he cannot move without the assistance of others and that he became disabled and unable to attend to his work. Hence, he claimed compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/-. 3. The first respondent owner of the lorry bearing No. AAA 2939 remained exparte and the second respondent National Insurance Company filed its written statement denying all the allegations and the manner of the accident, injuries suffered by the petitioner and the income of the petitioner and it is stated that the petitioner was traveling in the lorry as unauthorized passenger by the time of the accident and therefore, the second respondent is not liable to pay compensation. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry bearing No. AAA 2939? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 5. It is on record that subsequent to the filing of the present petition, the first petitioner died and the petitioners 2 to 4 who are wife and children of the deceased first petitioner are added as legal representatives of the first petitioner deceased. 6. On behalf of the claimants PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exs A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents none were examined and no documents were marked. 7. The Tribunal after taking into consideration of the evidence available on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No. AAA 2939 belonging to the first respondent-owner of the vehicle and insured with the second respondent-Insurance Company. As the first petitioner was working as Coolie for loading and unloading work in the lorry and getting Rs. 60 to 70 per day, the Court below taken the income of the deceased as 15,000/- per annum. As the age of the deceased by the time of the accident was 25 years as per Ex. A4, proper multiplier applicable is 18 and the loss of future income of the deceased to his family is 25% of Rs. 15,000/- comes to Rs. 3,750/- and multiplied with multiplier 18 the total amount comes to Rs. 67,500/- (Rs. 3750/- x18). The Tribunal also granted Rs. 3,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 1,250/- towards loss of income and Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling Rs. 91,750/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the claimants filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the evidence of PW-3 doctor who categorically stated that the facture of vertebra causing perisis of both lower limbs and due to inter connected infection there is possibility of death to the persons received the above injuries. The above said evidence of the doctor clearly shows that the injured subsequently died due to injuries sustained by him in the accident. He also submits that the court below was erred in holding that the deceased was earning Rs. 15,000/- per annum and the deceased was working as loading and unloading coolie and he was earning Rs. 2000/- per month. 9. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AAA 2939 and the deceased received grievous injuries and due to which he died later. It is also no doubt true that he was proceeding in the lorry for the purpose of loading and unloading as a coolie along with other coolies. Due to accident he spent lot of money and due to fracture injury to his spinal card he cannot sit and stand and that he cannot move without the assistance of others and that he became disabled and unable to attend to his work. The Tribunal while granting compensation without taking into consideration the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 took the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000/- per annum. The age of the deceased by the time of the accident was 25 years. But in the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 they have categorically stated that the age of the deceased was 26 or 27 years and the deceased was working as coolie and getting Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- per day. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased on monthly basis. Hence, the income of the deceased assessed as Rs. 2,000/- per month and per annum it comes to Rs. 24,000/- (12 x Rs. 2000). Out of that 25% disability if deducted, the disability comes to Rs. 6,000/- (Rs. 24,000x25/100) after applying relevant multiplier 18 the total amount comes Rs. 1,08,000/- (Rs. 6,000 x18). The claimant granted an amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering totaling to Rs. 1,28,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed enhancing the compensation from 91,750/- to 1,28,000/-. However, interest granted by the Tribunal is reduced from 9% per annum to 7% per annum taking into consideration of catena of Supreme Court judgments and also prevailing current rate of interest. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 01.07.2010 KA