THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1867 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellant is an agriculturist by profession in Guntur District. It is stated that on 28.04.1996, he loaded 10 bags of paddy in a lorry bearing No.AP 26 V 5139, owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent, at Nakerikallu Village, for taking the same to Narasaraopet, and boarded the lorry, to accompany the goods. The lorry is said to have met with an accident, when it reached Ravipadu Village, and the appellant received fracture injuries to both the legs. After prolonged treatment, his right leg was amputated above the knee level. He filed O.P.No.14 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur, claiming a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-. He pleaded that the accident occurred, on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the 2nd respondent. It was pleaded that the appellant travelled in the lorry as a passenger and that he did not load any goods in the vehicle. It was also alleged that the appellant sustained simple injuries in the accident, and the amputation of leg has occurred at a later point of time. Through order, dated 10.03.2000, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,10,000/-. The appellant filed the appeal, for enhancement of the compensation. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before this Court also. The appellant deposed as PW.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as PW.2. Exs.A.1 to A.20 pertaining to the treatment of the appellant and the record in Crime No.109 of 1996, P.S. Narasaraopet, were filed. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and the policy was filed as Ex.B.1. The occurrence of accident and the fact that the appellant received injuries was proved beyond any pale of doubt by filing F.I.R. in Crime No.109 of 1996, marked as Ex.A.15 and the charge sheet Ex.A.16. The finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard, is not challenged by the 2nd respondent. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the appellant pleaded that he was earning Rs.60,000/- to Rs.70,000/-, per year, from agriculture, nothing was placed before the Tribunal, in support of his contention. Since no evidence was forthcoming, the income of the appellant was taken as Rs.15,000/- per year. Since the disability of the appellant was certified to be 50%, the corresponding deduction was made and the loss of income for the appellant was taken as Rs.7,500/-, per year. Though that may be true from the point of view of orthopaedics, the impact thereof on his day-to-day work would be not less than 75%. The annual loss of income of the appellant would be 75% of the total notional income. Multiplier ’12.9’ was applied. The relevant multiplier for a person of age of 40 years is ‘15’. That would yield, the figure of Rs.1,68,750/-. The record discloses that the leg of the appellant was amputated above knee level. The pain and suffering for an injury of that nature, not to speak the injuries on the other parts of body, hardly needs any elaboration. Further, the inconvenience and pain on account of the injury would remain for the rest of the life. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards ‘pain and suffering’. A sum of Rs.25,000/- can be safely awarded on that count. It is not in dispute that the appellant underwent treatment at various hospitals, that include Government General Hospital, Guntur, Osmania Hospital, Hyderabad, and some private hospital at Narsaraopet. The appellant pleaded that he incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/-. An amount of Rs.4,352/- was awarded by the Tribunal towards ‘medical expenditure’. This amount is too meagre for such a prolonged and complicated treatment. A sum of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards expenditure for treatment. Thus, the total compensation would be Rs.2,13,750/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 6%, per annum. The C.M.A. is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Dt:12.12.2011 GJ