IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A. No.3249 of 2002 Between: Narreddula Venkata Krishnareddi .. Appellant AND Mallela Narasamma and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P. No.483 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur, dated 29-06-1998. The factual background for the appeal is that the petitioner was working as a Technical Agent Site Engineer under a Grade-1 contractor after completing B.E., in Civil Engineering and was aged 30 years by the time of his involvement in the motor accident. He was also the Managing Partner of Crystal Packs manufacturing polythene bags and was also practising as an Architect. He was earning Rs.7,000/- per month and on 17-08- 1993 when he was travelling on a motor cycle along with two others from Gurazala to Narsaraopet, lorry No. APN 6329, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the motor cycle severely injuring the petitioner, the pillion rider. The right thigh bone and ribs of the petitioner were fractured leading to a major surgery and he was undergoing treatment as in-patient in a private hospital. Hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer contended that the owner and insurer of the motor cycle are necessary parties and in any view, the claim is excessive and the insurer put the petitioner to strict proof of all the allegations. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident, permanent disability of the petitioner, subsisting insurance of the lorry with the 2nd respondent and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.14, X.1 and X.2 were marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly noting that the responsibility of the lorry driver for causing the accident was not in controversy and relied on the evidence of the injured P.W.1, corroborated by the first information report, the charge-sheet and judgment in C.C. No.43 of 1994. The Tribunal also noted that the 2nd respondent was the insurer of the vehicle at the relevant time and hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. The Tribunal assessed the quantum of compensation with reference to the probable monthly income of the petitioner at Rs.3,000/- and opined that he will be entitled to Rs.40,800/- towards 10 per cent disability suffered by him. For this purpose, the Tribunal deducted one-third towards personal expenses and applied a multiplier of 17. The medical bills produced were relied on to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and the Tribunal awarded a further sum of Rs.15,000/- towards and pain and suffering. It also granted Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities and permanent disability, thus, awarding in total Rs.1,05,800/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 12 per cent per annum on the same and also proportionate costs. The petitioner, hence, challenged the said award contending that the Tribunal should have taken his monthly income as claimed by him into account and should have assessed the percentage of disability at higher level to grant the compensation at the quantum claimed. The different sums awarded under different heads are also too low and hence, the appeal. Sri A. Rajendra Babu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent insurer are heard. None appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent. The findings of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident and the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the petitioner remained unchallenged and have become final leaving only the question of quantum of compensation to be gone into in this appeal. The Tribunal in the impugned award referred to Exs.A.9 to A.14 in connection with the probable income of the petitioner and in the absence of any definite indication from the documents as to the probable monthly income, had assessed the same at Rs.3,000/- per month. When the petitioner himself was claiming to be earning Rs.7,000/- per month approximately and it was only the remuneration of Rs.2,000/- said to be paid by the contractor under whom he was working, that was the definite income at that time, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong if it did not straight away accept the fluctuating income from the business of the partnership concern or avocation as Architect at the rate claimed by the petitioner. The Tribunal took into account the disability as certified by P.W.2, the doctor, and the petitioner could not have asked the Tribunal to assess such disability at any higher percentage than what was stated by P.W.2 himself. P.W.1 or P.W.2 did not also indicate in their evidence that the functional disability in carrying on the avocations of P.W.1 would have been more. Therefore, calculating the compensation with reference to the monthly income of Rs.3,000/- and a multiplier of 17 applicable to the then age of the petitioner cannot be interfered with, but deducting one-third towards the personal expenses of the petitioner may be inappropriate, as the petitioner is still alive and it is only to place him in the same position in which he would have been but for the accident that the compensation is assessed. If so, the compensation has to be enhanced by another Rs.20,000/- under that head. The compensation granted towards medical expenses was based on the medical bills and more than Rs.3,500/- were added to the quantum of expenditure shown by the bills; obviously it will meet further inevitable expenses which the petitioner could have incurred during the course of treatment. But towards pain and suffering in the light of the petitioner undergoing more than one surgery and having been confined to the hospital as in-patient for a considerable time, the Tribunal could have granted a total of Rs.20,000/- instead of Rs.15,000/- it granted. The compensation granted towards loss of amenities on permanent disability at Rs.25,000/- also is at a reasonable level and on the whole, increasing the compensation awarded by the Tribunal by Rs.25,000/- appears to answer the requirement to grant just and adequate compensation. Accordingly, the award, dated 29-06-1998 in M.V.O.P. No.483 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- I Additional District Judge, Guntur is modified by enhancing the compensation by Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment or deposit and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal. No directions need be given at this distance of time on the disbursement of the amount and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 04-08-2010 Svv