THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No. 3473 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the order dated 09.08.2002 in O.P.No.546 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby and whereunder the said O.P. filed by the first respondent herein-claimant was allowed-in-part granting compensation of Rs.6,13,000/-as against the claim of Rs.7,50,000/- with proportionate costs and interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. 2. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal can be summarised as follows: On 6.12.1999 at about 11.30 a.m., the claimant-injured was proceeding on his scooter from Turkamyamzal towards Hyderabad and when his scooter reached Sagar complex road, the tiller of the second respondent herein bearing No.AHT 1191 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, came on to the main road from a lane and dashed against his scooter, resultantly, he fell down. He sustained multiple fractures and passers by shifted him to Sanjivini hospital initially and later he was shifted to Kamineni hospital, where he underwent treatment by spending huge amounts. Though, he took treatment, the injuries are not yet cured and that the injuries resulted in permanent disability. At the time of accident, he was aged about 40 years and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by running a mutton stall. 3. The Insurance Company filed counter disputing his age, occupation, income and the manner of the accident. The allegation of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the tiller is denied. It is stated that the claimant must establish that the driver of the tiller had valid driving licence and that the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident. It is further stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Considering the pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal has framed the following issues: i.Whether the accident which took place on 6.12.99 resulting in injuries to the petitioner due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tiller bearing No. AHT 1191? ii.Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? iii.To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.11 were marked on behalf of the first respondent- claimant. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant- insurance company, but Ex.B.1-insurance policy was marked. 6. After conclusion of the trial, the lower Tribunal passed the impugned order as stated in Para 1 supra, on the ground that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tiller. Challenging the same, the present CMA is preferred by the Insurance Company. 7. Heard the learned standing counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the record. 8. The claimant himself was examined as PW.1 to prove the accident. Ex.A.1 is the complaint. Ex.A.2 is the charge sheet. Ex.A.3 is the discharge summary of Kamineni hospital. The evidence of PW.1 with regard to occurrence of the accident is corroborated by Ex.A.1- complaint, which was given to police immediately after the accident. Though, it is the case of the Insurance Company that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, there is no evidence on record to corroborate the same. A perusal of the record goes to show that the driver of the tiller had not taken precaution while coming on to the main road from bylane. PW.2-Doctor, who treated PW.1 in Apollo hospital deposed that the claimant sustained the following injuries: 1) Blunt injury left side of chest with collapse left lung. Fracture of left sided 3.6 ribs. 2) Chest infection 3) Septicemia 4) Respiratory failure TYPE-I 5) Fracture of lower end radius with intra articular extension with lateral displacement. He further deposed that a hole was made in his throat to facilitate easy breathing and to decongest his lungs and later on it was closed after he recovered; that K-wire fixation for his fracture of lower end of radius right side was done; that he is feeling discomfort in breathing due to fracture of ribs of left side; that he is experiencing breathlessness on exertion and that he requires surgical correction for removal of K-wire fixation. In view of the evidence of PW.2, the contentions of the insurance company that there was no nexus between the injuries sustained and the respiratory problem and that the expenses incurred for conducting the tests for respiratory problem should not have included, cannot be accepted. 9. So far as earning capacity of the claimant is concerned, it is seen that he is running a mutton stall. Though PW.1 deposed that he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month at the time of accident, there was no proof to that effect. Since he was maintaining family, at the time of the accident, the lower Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, came to the conclusion that he was earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the time of the accident and that due to nature of injuries suffered by him, percentage of disability was taken at 50%, and as such his monthly earning capacity came down to Rs.1,500/- per month, which would annually comes to Rs.18,000/-. So far as the age of the claimant-injured is concerned, there is no conclusive proof on record to show his exact age. Therefore, the lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the deceased was 38 years old at the time of the accident and applied appropriate multiplier ‘15’. Thus, the total loss of income was arrived at Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.18,000/- x 15). Since he experienced severe pain and suffering due to injuries, the lower Tribunal granted Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. Exs.A.5, 6, A.8 and A.9- medical bills indicate that the claimant spent Rs.3,02,823/-for his treatment and as such the lower Tribunal granted Rs.3,02,823/- towards medical expenses. Since the claimant-injured has to undergo operation for removal of K-wire, a sum of Rs.10,000/- was granted towards future medical expenses. Further, taking into consideration the attendants’ expenses and transportation during hospitalisation, an amount of Rs.15,000/- was granted towards attendants’ charges, transportation and extra-nourishment etc. Thus in total the lower Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.6,12,823/-, which was rounded off to Rs.6,13,000/-. 10. In the circumstances, this court is of the view that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity legal or otherwise warranting interference from this court. 11. Hence, the CMA fails and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ​ ​_______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 05-08-2010 Stp