HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 18-06-2010 Between: Tirupathi ………Petitioner And K.Shankar and another. ………Respondents HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI M.A.C.M.A.No.12 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation relating to the award dated 05-09-2005 in M.V.O.P.No.124 of 2001 on the file of the Chief Judge-cum-, Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor. 2. This is a case of injury. On 05-02-2001, while the appellant was proceeding on his cycle, a lorry bearing Regn. No.KA-08-A-2728, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the cycle, as a result of which, the appellant sustained multiple injuries including a grievous injury to his left foot. The appellant urging that the injury is permanent disability sought compensation for a sum of Rs.4.00 lakhs. The Tribunal, on the material placed before it, awarded compensation a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-. Not satisfied with the quantum, this appeal has been filed. 3. Heard both the parties. 4. Sri T.C. Krishna, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the Tribunal, while adopting the daily income as Rs.100/- and computing the compensation for permanent disability, erroneously deducted 1/3rd from out of the income towards personal expenses of the appellant. He further contended that the Tribunal having observed that the appellant had to be transported from one hospital to the other, he should have been granted reasonable amounts towards transport charges. As the appellant required the services of an attendant, reasonable amount should have been awarded towards attendant charges. He, therefore, submitted that the amount awarded is not just and reasonable. 5. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and that there are no grounds for enhancing the compensation. 6. The appellant in order to prove the nature of injury got examined P.Ws.2 to 4. P.W.2 is a Civil Surgeon of the Government Hospital, Kuppam, who examined the appellant immediately after the accident and found crush injury to the left foot of the appellant. P.W.2, after noticing the injuries, issued Ex.A-3 certificate. P.W.3 is an Orthopedic Surgeon at Bangalore. He deposed that the appellant was admitted in his hospital on 07-02-2001 and he too noticed the following injuries: 1. Auto amputation of little toe of left foot. 2. Avulsion of sole of foot skin from the sole of left foot. 3. Fracture of first metatarsal bone of left foot. 4. Fracture of distal, one third of fifth metatarsal. 5. The whole foot infected with slough. His opinion was that injuries 1 to 4 were grievous in nature. P.W.3 also stated that the appellant suffered 42% disability on account of the accident. P.W.4 is another Orthopedic Surgeon, S.V.R.R. Hospital, Tirupathi, who also confirmed the injury. P.W.4 conducted skin grafting on the appellant and certified that the appellant suffered 40% disability. 7. From the aforesaid evidence, it is evident that the appellant suffered a grievous injury to his left foot to the extent of atleast 40% of the disability. The Tribunal took note of this fact and calculated the compensation on this basis, which cannot be faulted. 8. The appellant was admittedly a stone-cutter and aged 19 years. Although the income was claimed at Rs.150/- per day, the Tribunal assessed the income at Rs.100/- per day which also cannot be faulted. At the said rate, the income of the appellant comes to Rs.3000/- per month. Since it is a case of injury, as held by this Court in M.Yadagiri Reddy @ M.Yadi Reddy V. K.Rama and Another[1], no deductions can be made from out of the income towards personal expenses. The Tribunal, therefore, is not right in deducting 1/3rd of the amount towards personal expenses. Taking the income as Rs.3,000/- per month, and without allowing any deduction, the income of the appellant would come to Rs.36,000/- per annum (i.e. 3000 X 12). Applying 40% disability, the loss of future earning capacity would come to Rs.14,400/- per annum. Applying the multiplier ‘16’ as was done by the Tribunal, the total loss of earning capacity would come to Rs.2,30,400/- (i.e. 14400 X 16). 9. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards transport charges. It is on record that the appellant who met with an accident at Kuppam had to be shifted to Bangalore and Tirupathi for treatment. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for reasonable amount of Rs.3000/- towards transport charges. 10. The Tribunal also did not award any amount towards attendant charges. The accident took place on 05-02-2001 and he was in the hospital at Bangalore from 07-02-2001 to 23-02-2001. He was under treatment for skin grafting at Tirupathi. During the period of his stay in different hospitals, it can be assumed that the appellant required the services of an attendant. Therefore, he is entitled to a reasonable sum of Rs.4,000/- towards attendant charges. In all, the appellant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,37,400/-. The Tribunal has granted Rs.1,68,000/- only. Hence, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.69,400/- (Rupees sixty nine thousand and four hundred only) as enhancement. The award in O.P.No.124 of 2001, dated 05-09-2005 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chittoor, is modified accordingly. The appellant is entitled for interest at 7% on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ 18th June 2010 KVR [1] 2005 (2) ALT 459