THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.808 of 2004 Dated: 16-12-2010 Between: M.Narasimha ………..Petitioner and M.Vijaya Kumar and two others. …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.808 of 2004 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is directed against the award dated 10-10-2003, passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.1457 of 1996, filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident when he was proceeding on his bicycle from check post, Medchal and when he reached B.D. Khaitan factory, a lorry bearing Regn. No.APN 8007 driven by its driver with high speed in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction and dashed against the appellant, due to which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries all over the body. 2. Before the Court below, the 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 and documents marked under Ex.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.A-11, awarded total compensation of Rs.71,787/- under the following heads: 1. Compensation towards pain and suffering : 25000-00 2. Compensation for the disability : 30000-00 3. Medical Expenditure : 3787-00 4. Loss of earnings for five months @ Rs.2000/-p.m : 10000-00 5. Expenditure on transport to hospital : 1000-00 6. Compensation towards extra nourishment : 2000-00 Not satisfied with the award passed by the Court below, the appellant- claimant filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, especially with regard to the compensation awarded under the head of disability, contended that the appellant was very young and aged 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.2,000/- per month. Exs.A-11 is the disability certificates issued by P.W.2 assessing the disability of the appellant at 50%. He further contended that the Court below erred in granting lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- without following the prescribed manner by calculating the annual income with appropriate multiplier, on the ground that it is not a permanent disability. Therefore, he prayed that by calculating the annual income with appropriate multiplier, the compensation awarded by the Court below may be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for R-2 contended that the Court below has correctly assessed the income of the appellant and based on the documents filed by the appellant-claimant, rightly awarded the compensation, and therefore, the compensation as awarded cannot be enhanced at all. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.25000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.3787/- towards Medical Expenditure, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of earnings for five months, and Rs.2,000/- towards extra nourishment, which, in my considered opinion, may not be interfered with and the same is confirmed. 8. So far as the award of Rs.30,000/- granted by the Court below towards disability is concerned, the Court below, while granting award under this head, ought to have followed the prescribed manner. The Court below has taken monthly income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/-, so his annual income comes to Rs.12,000/-. According to P.W.2, 50% disability was assessed. But, however, since it is not a permanent disability, it may be taken as 30% disability. The age of the appellant is 22 at the time of accident. The appropriate multiplier to be applied is ‘17’. According to the disability granted at 30%, and monthly income of Rs.2,000/-, he is entitled to Rs.600/- per month. Then his annual income comes to Rs.7200/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,22,400/- ((7200) X (17)) (rounded off to Rs.1,22,000/-) towards disability. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,63,787/- (10,000 (+) 1,000 (+) 2,000 (+) (3,787) (+) 25,000 (+) 1,22,000) towards total compensation. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part holding that the appellant-claimant is entitled for Rs.92,000/-(Rs.1,63,787/- (-) Rs.71,787/-) as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.1457 of 1996, dated 10-10-2003, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 16, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr