THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.702 of 2006 24th February, 2011 Between: B. Satyanarayana (since deceased, by LRs) … Appellant / Petitioner And M. Mohan Gandhi Reddy and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.702 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award dated 07-11-2005 passed in OP No.278 of 2002 by the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Red Hills, Nampally, Hyderabad. The claimant (since deceased, by LRs) in the said OP is the appellant herein. The said OP was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, that occurred on 31-12-2001, involving the car-TATA INDICA bearing registration No.AP-9AG-2900. 2. The facts stated are that on the fateful day, i.e. 31-01-2001, at about 11:00 pm, the claimant was going on his motor cycle on the extreme left side of the road near Kalyan Nagar cross roads, Hyderabad and, at that time, the accident car in question driven by its driver came in a rash and negligent manner in opposite direction and, while taking sudden turn, dashed the motor cycle of the claimant. Due to the sudden dash, the claimant fell down and sustained multiple injuries all over his body. It is stated that he was shifted to St.Teresa Hospital, Sanathnagar, Hyderabad, and from there to Sri Sai Hospital, Ameerpet, where he underwent treatment as in-patient. It is stated that the claimant was aged 40 years as on the date of accident and was working in Telugu pictures as “Fighter” and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. Due to the injuries sustained, he lost his income source and is not in a position to do any thing. That he is unable to sit or squat due to the injuries sustained. To prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW-1, besides two other witnesses and got marked Exhibits A-1 to A-24. None was examined on behalf of the respondents nor any documents were marked. 3. The Tribunal, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced, on the question of culpability in causing the accident, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the TATA INDICA car in question; and, accordingly, granted compensation of Rs.4,63,620/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellants-LRs of the claimant and the learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident. The finding of the Tribunal as to the culpability in causing the accident also does not warrant any interference in the light of the evidence adduced by the claimant. Now the question that is to be considered is as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. 6. It is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of this appeal, the claimant died due to the affect of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and his wife and two daughters are brought on record as his legal representatives. It has come in the evidence of the claimant that he was working as cinema artiste and prior to the accident he was acting in movies as ‘Stunt man’ and used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. In proof of his evidence, he filed exhibits A-14 to A-19 to establish that he was working as ‘stunt man’ in movies, which are membership card issued by the AP Cine Stunt Directors, salary certificate, letter of appreciation, letter of acceptance, news cuttings of the news papers. PW-3 was examined to establish that the claimant was a member of the Stunt Artistes’ Union. He also deposed that the claimant used to earn Rs.10,000/- per month. It has come in the evidence that the claimant was aged 45 years as on the date of accident. The injuries sustained by the claimant are marked as Exhibits A-3 to A-6 which were issued by the Hospital where the claimant took treatment. The Doctor who treated the claimant was examined as PW-2 to speak as to the nature of the injuries sustained. According to PW-2, the claimant sustained the following injuries. (i) (L1) Compound Grade II a comminuted fracture of tibia; (ii) (L1) Comminuted fracture femur closed; (iii) Disloeahar of (L1) fibula; (iv) Fracture of Matararsal with degloning of clonoum 7. It is stated that the claimant underwent operation for removal of extra fixation of lower fermoral Steinmanpin etc. PW-2, issued disability certificate which is marked as exhibit A-13 assessing the disability at 44% which is stated to be of permanent in nature. It has come in the evidence of PW-2 that the claimant has suffered shortening of left leg and has instability of left knee, stiffness of left ankle and foot. Since none was examined on behalf of the respondents, the evidence adduced by the claimant remained uncontroverted. It has come in the evidence of the claimant who himself got examined as PW-1 and also PW-3 that the claimant was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Since the claimant may not have work throughout the year as ‘stunt man’, but might have done some other work and, therefore, considering the age of the claimant as 45 years as on the date of the accident, his income can be fixed at Rs.6,000/- per month, which comes to Rs.72,000/- annually. The appropriate multiplier applicable in this case, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, (2009 (6) SCALE 129) is ‘14’. Multiplying Rs.72,000/- with the multiplier ‘14’, the amount comes to Rs.10,08,000/-. Since the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 44%, the claimant is granted an amount of Rs.4,43,520/- towards disability plus the amounts awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation to hospital, Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, medical expenses Rs.1,63,620/- and Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering, totalling to Rs.6,97,140/- with interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of payment. The compensation amount granted shall be entitled by the appellants i.e. wife and two daughters, in equal shares. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED,J 24th February, 2011 Nrg/ksm