THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A No.2264 of 2003 Date:11.2.2010 Between: Bethapudi Ramesh, Piduguralla, Gutnur District Appellant/Petitioner. And R.Valraj, Thempoondi, Velloore and others. Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A No2264 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.1034 of 1998 in respect of the injuries and the permanent disability sustained by the appellant. Against his claim of Rs.10,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.1,40,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% and proportionate costs. The quantum of compensation is challenged by the appellant on the ground that it is grossly in adequate. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Insurance Company. According to the evidence of the appellant, who is examined as P.W.1, he sustained fractures to his right thigh, right hand and also received a head injury in the motor accident vehicle accident occurred on 13.7.1998 at 1.00 P.M., on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No.TN 31C 4455. Though two vehicles were involved in the said accident i.e., Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 16D 5899 and the lorry bearing No.TN 31C 4455, the learned Judge, on considering the evidence on record, held that that the accident was solely on account of rash and negligence of the driver of the lorry and fastened liability on the respondents 1 and 2, who are insured and insurer of the said vehicle respectively, which finding became final and needs no interference in this appeal. The only point which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the compensation granted by the Tribunal below is just and reasonable or requires any enhancement as contended by the appellant. According to the evidence of P.W.1, the injured, who is a businessmen and also owns a large extent of agricultural land and was said to be getting income of Rs.1,00,000/- per month from all his sources. P.W.1 did not adduce any evidence indicating that he was paying any income tax. However, he filed sale deeds-Exs.A25 and A26 showing that he owns landed property. In any event, there is no evidence showing in his actual income. P.W.2 - Dr.Vijaya Bhaskar, who conducted the operations on the right thy, right hand and treated for the head injury, deposed his evidence that the appellant was hospitalised for three months. The Wound Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Tirupathi was marked as Ex.A3, which indicates the above mentioned injuries. Ex.A18 is the Medical Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Tirupathi, which shows that the petitioner/appellant was admitted in the said hospital for treatment. Ex.A17 is the Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board. According to which the petitioner sustained 40% to 75% disability, which is partial and permanent. However, the said document was not duly proved. Moreover, P.W.2-Dr.Vijaya Bhaskar stated in his evidence, that the petitioner sustained only disability at 20% to 25%. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.2 only can be taken into consideration. Ex.A20-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board and Ex.A21- Concession Certificate issued by the Board of Railway are relevant to establish that the petitioner sustained disability. In any event, even the appellant is considered as a businessmen as well as the landlord, on account of the permanent disability sustained by him, his entire business and agriculture will not be affected. His efficiency might be reduced in conducting business and managing agriculture to some extent and a lump sum amount in that regard can be arrived at. Therefore, the petitioner can be granted an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of earning power. Therefore, the petitioner can be compensated for the permanent disability sustained by him on account of the two fractures and also for the head injury, which ultimately resulted in permanent disability of 20%- 25% an amount of Rs.50,000/- can be granted. This apart an amount of Rs.25,000/- can be granted to the appellant towards pain and suffering and an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, the compensation of Rs.60,000/- granted towards medical expenses by the Tribunal below based on documentary and oral evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant needs no interference and the same can be awarded in this appeal also. For the head injury sustained by the petitioner an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be granted, which the Tribunal declined to grant without any justification, since the evidence of P.W.1 and the Wound Certificate disclose the said injury. The appellant is therefore, entitled for compensation of Rs.1,80,000/- under the above mentioned heads, which according to this Court is justified and reasonable. No amount is granted towards loss of earnings, since there is no proof placed by the appellant that he incurred loss either in the business or in agriculture. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.40,000/-. The enhanced amount of Rs.40,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. In the result, with the above enhancement of the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. _________________________ JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO Date:11.2.2010 mrb