THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 1394 of 2003 and Cross-Objections JUDGMENT: The civil miscellaneous appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is filed by the Insurance Company against order and decree made in O.P. No. 165 of 1998 dated 25.10.2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-learned District Judge, Nizamabad, whereunder an amount of Rs.4,25,600/- was awarded for the injuries suffered by the victim. Whereas, the Cross- Objections are filed by the claimant against the very same order and decree, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- as against Rs.4,25,600/- awarded by the Tribunal. It appears, when the victim – respondent No.1 was traveling in a Car from Hyderabad to Adilabad on 28.8.1997 at 2.30 p.m. and when the car reached Kuprial after bus stage, a lorry bearing No.AP 95 7866, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner, came in high speed from opposite direction and wrong side of the road and dashed against the car, on account of which respondent No.1 sustained injuries to forehead and head, her skull bone fractured leading to intra cranial haemorrhage and neck bone fractured. Further, she sustained injuries to both of her hands and legs and her right arm was fractured. Immediately, she was shifted to Govt. Civil Hospital, Kamareddy and from there, she was referred to NIMS. Contending that respondent No.1-petitioner was aged 36 years as on the date of filing O.P. and she was earning Rs.2,750/- per month as honorarium in the capacity of Z.P. Chair Person, Rs.10,000/- per month as an Advocate and Rs.1,20,000/- per annum on agriculture and that on account of the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, she incurred disability, lost her memory power, unable to earn for her livelihood and incurred an expenditure to a tune of Rs.2,00,000/- for medicines, treatment and extra nourishment, respondent No.1-petitioner filed O.P. 165 of 1998 claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- 1st respondent in the O.P. remained ex parte. 2nd respondent therein filed written statement denying the petition averments and contending that there was composite and contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Car of the petitioner and that 2nd respondent is not liable to pay compensation. It was also contended that the claim of the petitioner is highly excessive and out of all proportions, the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation and the O.P. is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No. AP 95 7866 (Lorry) by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, what just amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? In support of her claim, respondent No.1-petitioner gave evidence as PW-1, got examined PW-2 doctor and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6. None was examined and no document was marked on behalf of respondents in the O.P. Further, Ex.C-1 disability certificate issued by the doctor was marked by the Tribunal. On a consideration of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 95/7866. Further, taking into account the age and earning capacity of the petitioner, injuries received by her, expenditure incurred by her for taking treatment etc. the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,600/- as against the claim of the petitioner for Rs.5,00,000/-. Challenging the said quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal. Heard both sides. It is mainly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and there was absolutely no evidence to show that respondent No.1-petitioner was earning Rs.2,750/- per month as honorarium in the capacity of Z.P. Chair Person, Rs.10,000/-per month as an Advocate and Rs.1,20,000/- per anum on agriculture and that she incurred a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for medines, treatment and extra nourishment. Therefore, awarding a compensation of Rs.4,25,600/- is arbitrary and illegal. Whereas, learned counsel for respondent No.1- petitioner and Cross-Objector contended that the Court below failed to properly appreciate the income of the claimant and grossly erred in holding that she was earning Rs.6,000/- per month only. It ought to have seen that besides getting honorarium of Rs.2,750/- as Chair Person of Zilla Parishad, she was earning Rs.10,000/- per month by practicing as an Advocate and earning Rs.1,20,000/- per annum on agriculture. Further, the Court below failed to award reasonable compensation towards pain and suffering and inevitable expenditure on medicines, transport and extra nourishment. The disability suffered by the claimant was 48% as deposed by the Doctor, but the Court below erroneously came to the conclusion that the claimant suffered 30%. Thus, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- and the C.M.A. filed by the appellant- Insurance Company is liable to be dismissed. As seen from the material available on record, there is clinching evidence to the effect that respondent No.1-petitioner had met with an accident on 28.8.1997 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Lorry bearing No. AP 95 7866. Ex.A-3 wound certificate shows the injuries received by respondent No.1 in the said accident. Exs.A-4 and A-5 show that she sustained head injury with left posterior temporal contusion haemotoma with fracture of right first and second ribs and there was paucity of limb movements and on examination 16cm. long sutured laceration was found extending from right side fore head to right temporal region. Ex.C-1 is the disability certificate showing that she suffered permanent partial disability at MC bridge scale. The doctor who examined respondent No.1-petitioner has given evidence as PW-2 and his evidence categorically supports the case of respondent No.1-petitioner as to the injuries received by her in the accident. On the other hand, there was no rebuttal evidence that the petitioner was neither practicing as an advocate nor she was Chair Person of Zilla Parishad, Adilabad. Further, though the respondent No.1-petitioner has asserted that she was earning Rs.10,000/- as an Advocate and Rs.1,20,000/- by supervising agriculture and getting cultivation of her lands to an extent of 20 acres, in the absence of any record to prove her accurate earnings and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the earning of respondent No.1-petitioner is Rs.6,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.72,000/- per annum. Though Ex.A-3 shows that respondent No.1 suffered disability of 48% at the MC Bridge scale, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the disability affecting her future earnings was rightly taken by the Tribunal at 30% and, in view of the evidence available on record, the same cannot be found fault with. The age of respondent No.1 was shown as 35 years as on the date of accident and, considering that as on the date of trial i.e. as on 2002 she must be running 40 years, the Tribunal applied multiplier 16 and accordingly held that she is entitled to a compensation o Rs.3,45,600/- (Rs.72,000/-x30/100x16) under the head of loss of future earnings, Rs.15,000/- under the head of pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards inevitable expenditure for medicines, transport and extra nourishment. Further, considering that respondent No.1-petitioner was unmarried as on the date of accident and even as on the date of trial and the chances of getting married are remote and applying the principles laid down in R.D. Hattangadi v. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Limited and others (1995 ACJ 366 SC) and Ashwinikumar Mishra v. Munium Babu and Others (AIR 1999 SC 2260), the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life, pleasures of life, adverse effects on prospects of marriage, frustration and mental agony, deprivation of considerable stem of expected life on account of injury to brain and diminution in full pleasures of living. Thus, considering the oral and the documentary evidence available on record in proper perspective, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.4,25,600/- with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, to be payable by appellant and respondent No.2 herein, jointly and severally. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that such a reasoned order passed by the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court in this civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the result, both the C.M.A. and the Cross-Objections are devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. They are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 02-3-2010. MVB.