THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.905 of 2006 JUDGMENT: Not being satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.432 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for brevity ‘the Tribunal), by the order, dated 19.12.2005, the claimant-injured filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded Rs.56,145/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant-claimant filed the claim petition alleging that on 24.09.2002, he was traveling in a bus bearing registration No.AP 11 Z 387 from Hyderabad to Kurnool and when the bus reached the limits of Itikyala Police Station at about 12 hours midnight, near K.H.No.173 stone, it suddenly caught fire and flames spread in the bus, as a result of it, the appellant and others received extensive burn injuries. It is averred in the claim petition that due to the impact of the injuries, he is unable to withstand sunrays and that, due to contraction of skin and muscles at the place of burns, their movements and functions are restricted and he is unable to hold anything with hands. On a report given by him, a case in Crime No.63 of 2002 of Itikyala Police Station was registered. Hence, he filed the claim petition seeking to grant Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 and Exs.X-1 and X-2 were marked. On behalf of the respondent-Corporation, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced. Learned counsel for the appellant-injured contended that the Tribunal erred in not accepting the medical bills produced by the appellant; that the Tribunal also erred in not granting compensation towards medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges and future medical expenses and prayed this Court to award the compensation under the said heads giving some relief to the appellant. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent contended that the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the same is liable to be confirmed by this Court. Apropos the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing on either side, the points to be determined in this appeal are whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and if not, whether the same is liable to be enhanced. Though the appellant got himself examined as P.W-1 and deposed that he was getting an income of Rs.70,000/- per annum by doing sub-contract works, except his sole testimony, none was examined to support the same nor any documentary evidence was marked, in which event, a negative inference may be drawn. However, he must be doing some job for sustenance and hence, he earnings can be taken at Rs.3,000/- per month, which works out to Rs.36,000/- per annum. The appellant to substantiate his case as regards the injuries suffered by him, examined P.W-2-Assistant Professor, Male Burns Ward, Government General Hospital, Kurnool, who deposed that the appellant was admitted in the hospital with mixed type of burns over the face, chest, both upper arms, both hands, left knee and foot, extending over 30% of the total body surface. He further deposed that contractures were found over the neck, anterior partial chest and right hand of the appellant, which needs further contracture excision and skin grafting. Ex.A-2-wound certificate and Exs.A-3 and A-4-discahrge cards issued by Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad and Gowri Gopal Hospital, Kurnool, respectively, together with Ex.A- 5-two photos with negatives go to show that the appellant sustained burn injuries over 30% of the total body surface. Due to the said burns, his face was also disfigured to some extent. The pain and suffering undergone by the appellant can only be perceived but not explained. Therefore, he has to compensated at least in terms of monetary benefit. As already referred supra, if the annual income of the claimant is taken at Rs.36,000/-, 30% of the same works out to Rs.10,800/-. Having regard to the age of the claimant at 42 years as on the date of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is “14’, by applying which, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,51,200/-. Further, in view of the nature of burn injuries suffered by the appellant, I am of the opinion that a sum of Rs.10,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. In all, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,61,200/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the quantum of compensation enhanced by this Court i.e., Rs.1,05,055/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED 17th March 2011 DR