HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.No.3486 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.1836 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dated 27.02.2004. The deceased first appellant and Kanaka Mallaiah were going on a bullock cart with a load of paddy bags to the market on 03.05.2001 and at the outskirts of Rangadhampally village, a lorry No.TN 37 F 3230 came from behind and dashed the cart. The lorry was driven in high speed rashly and negligently and the deceased- first appellant suffered grievous fracture injuries. He was treated at CDR hospital, Hyderabad from 03.05.2001 to 04.06.2001 and his right leg was amputated. He spent Rs.1,00,000/- for treatment. Siddipet police registered crime No.27 of 2001 against the lorry driver. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal. But, the insurer contested the claim putting the deceased-first appellant to strict proof of all his allegations and contending that its liability arises only on proof of all the requisite conditions. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the deceased-first appellant to compensation. It examined PWs 1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.12 and B.1 during the course of enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, relying on the evidence of the injured PW.1 and the contents of Ex.A.1 First Information Report and Ex.A.2 charge sheet which were uncontroverted. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the claimant suffered a crush injury on the lower end of the right leg and a big lacerated cut injury on the back of the left shoulder. The Tribunal also noted that PW.2, the doctor who treated the claimant, stated about the amputation of the right leg below the knee effecting 50% permanent disability. Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards the injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transportation, Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future earnings, Rs.3,000/- towards purchase of blood, Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards disfiguration, making a total of Rs.2,08,000/-. While relying on Ex.A.10 medical bills and Exs.A.9 and A.10, prescriptions and medical bills, the Tribunal did not assign any reasons for not awarding the total sum covered by the said bills. Of the total compensation of Rs.2,08,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% per annum and also proportionate costs against both the respondents. The deceased-first appellant approached this Court with this appeal, contending that the Tribunal should have granted higher compensation for the permanent disability of 50% and the huge expenditure incurred by the claimant ought to have been taken into account in calculating the medical expenses to be reimbursed or transport or disfiguration etc. The deceased thus desired the balance compensation be awarded as claimed. While the appeal was pending, the deceased-first appellant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. Heard Sri J.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel representing Sri P.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B.Devanand, learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent, while the 1st respondent remained unrepresented before this Court also. The conclusion of the Tribunal in the impugned award about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry being the cause for the accident was not challenged by either party and it has become final. The ownership of the lorry with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are not in dispute and therefore the joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the deceased- first appellant for the injuries suffered in the accident and their consequences cannot be in doubt. The quantum of compensation to be so awarded should consist of various pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages awardable under various heads and in view of the amputation of the right leg below the knee and the consequent permanent disability assessed at 50% by PW.2, the loss of future earnings should have been scientifically calculated. In the absence of any specific evidence about the extent of land owned by the deceased- first appellant or the actual income he was earning from his agricultural activity, the minimum that could have been taken into account is the notional income which the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, itself assumes in the case of non-earning persons under the Second Schedule. On such income of Rs.15,000/- per annum, the appropriate multiplier applicable to the deceased-first appellant, who was aged 34 years, at the time of the accident, would have been ‘16’ as per Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1]. If so, total loss of income for the future for the claimant would have been Rs.2,40,000/- and if the percentage of disability assessed at 50% in respect of the amputated right leg were to be considered as imposing 40% functional disability with reference to the whole body and the occupation of the deceased-first appellant, the loss of future earnings would have come to about Rs.96,000/-. If such loss of future earnings would have been rounded off to Rs.1,00,000/-, the deceased-first appellant would have been entitled to Rs.60,000/- more than Rs.40,000/- already awarded under that head by the Tribunal. While the Tribunal awarded Rs.40,000/- towards injuries Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, extra nourishment and transport and Rs.75,000/- towards permanent disability, the compensation awardable under such different heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages could have been much more in total and similarly the compensation of Rs.5,000/- granted towards disfiguration. But, in respect of the actual medical expenses incurred, the Tribunal reimbursed only Rs.28,000/- towards medical expenses and purchase of blood, notwithstanding its acceptance of Exs.A.9 and A.10 in the impugned award itself. It made no reference to Ex.A.6 original medical bill issued by C.D.R.Hospital, Hyderabad for Rs.69,000/- and odd and it is seen from Ex.A.5 discharge summary issued by C.D.R.Hospital that the deceased-first appellant was an inpatient in the hospital for more than one month between 03.05.2001 to 04.06.2001. The course of treatment undergone and the expenses billed under Ex.A.6 do not suggest the amount of Rs.69,000/- and odd to be in any way exorbitant or excessive and in the absence of any reason assigned by the Tribunal to not accept such expenditure, the same ought to be reimbursed to the injured-claimant. If so towards medical expenses proved through Exs.A.6 and A.10, a balance of Rs.60,000/- should have been granted to the deceased-first appellant. Thus, even on a reasonably conservative estimate, the claimant would have been entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,20,000/- towards just and adequate compensation and the same has to be granted with a reasonable rate of interest and proportionate costs. In view of the length of time, a reference to which was made by the insurer, such interest shall be confined to 6% on the enhanced portion of the compensation. Accordingly, the award dated 27.02.2004 in O.P.No.1836 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award, and the appeal is allowed in part without costs in favour of the appellants 2 to 6, who are impleaded as the legal representatives of the deceased-first appellant. The compensation so awarded shall be shared at the ration of 30% for the 2nd appellant, 10% for the 3rd appellant and 20% each for appellants 4 to 6. _____________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 15th March, 2011. PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298