THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.2540 of 2007 and Cross Objections. ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is at the instance of the Insurance Company directed against the award passed in O.P.No.341 of 2006 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar at Jagtial on 24.07.2007. The respondent No.1 is the claimant before the Tribunal and he has filed the application under Section 166 of M.V.Act claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a Motor vehicle accident. According to him on 12.01.2006 while he was proceeding from Peddapalli to Dhullkatta on his motorcycle bearing No.AP 1F 361 and when he reached the outskirts of Suglampalli village, the driver of the jeep bearing No.AP 15T 4404 proceeding from Sulthanabad side came in high speed and in a negligent manner, dashed against his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and sustained fracture of both bones of left leg and other injuries all over his body. He was shifted to District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar, where he was given first aid and later he was shifted to M.G.M. Hospital, Warangal and as the doctors refused to admit him, he was shifted to NIMS Hospital, Hyderabad. In NIMS Hospital, two units of blood was transfused and various investigations were done and it was disclosed that he sustained Grade-II compound fractures of both bones of left leg and doctors opined that in view of the irreversible ischemla of left leg, reconstruction may not be possible for limb salvage and proposed amputation of the left leg. Then he admitted himself in Area Hospital, Singareni Colleries Company Limited, Ramakrishnapur by getting himself discharged from NIMS Hospital. After admitting in Area Hospital, his left leg was amputated. He was working as coal filler and earning a sum of Rs.14,000/- per month and he was declared unfit for the job and he was removed. The medical board, District Headquarters hospital, Adilabad issued certificate to the effect that he suffered 70% disability, in fact he suffered 100% disability. Hence, he is entitled for compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the jeep, opposed the application by filing counter contending that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep and the accident was occurred due to negligence of the claimant himself and denied the disability suffered by the claimant. The 2nd respondent/insurance company opposed the application by filing counter contending that the vehicle was not insured with them and they are disputing about the disability suffered by the petitioner and also injuries sustained by him and put the petitioner to strict proof of the same and also pleaded that the claim is excessive and exorbitant. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 15T 4404 by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1 and examined the Doctor, who treated him as P.W.2, Incharge superintendent of Mines as P.W.3 and the member of the medical board as P.W.4 and Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held the issue No.1 in favour of the petitioner holding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. With regard to issue No.2, the Tribunal by taking into consideration of the injuries sustained by the petitioner and also disability sustained by him and by arriving at the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.10,000/- and taking into consideration the disability at 70%, by applying the multiplier ‘15’, arrived at the total loss of earnings at Rs.12,60,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injuries, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future amenities, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. In total, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.13,38,000/- towards compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the insurance company has filed the present appeal questioning the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the claimants also filed cross objections. The appellant/insurance company’s counsel has pleaded that when the 70% disability was taken into consideration, awarding further amount of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injuries is not proper and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is on higher side. He further pleaded that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive and the same is liable to be reduced. According to P.W.1, he suffered compound Grade-II fractures to both bones of the left leg and his left leg was amputated. The said version of P.W.1 was supported by the evidence of P.W.2, who is the doctor in Singareni Hospital and also injury certificate Ex.A.2. The Medical Board assessed the disability suffered by the claimant as 70% and the same was supported by the evidence of P.W.4, who is the member of the medical board. The claimant was working as coal filler in Singareni Colleries Company Limited. As per the evidence of P.W.3, who is the Superintendent of Mines, the claimant was drawing Rs.499.33 ps., per day and the same was supported by Ex.A.15. By taking the daily wage as Rs.500/-, for 20 working days, the monthly salary arrived at Rs.10,000/-. As such, the yearly income of the claimant comes to Rs.1,20,000/-. Since the claimant suffered 70% disability, the loss of earnings of the claimant comes to Rs.84,000/- P.A. As per Ex.A.15, the age of the claimant was 43 years as on the date of the accident. As per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)”, for the age group of 41 to 45 years the proper multiplier is ‘14’. Thus, the total loss of earnings of the petitioner comes to (Rs.84,000 X 14) Rs.11,76,000/-. The appellant’s counsel mainly questioned the awarding of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injuries. Admittedly, the claimant was working as coal filler in Singareni Colleries and after the accident he was removed from service; therefore, he has suffered 100% disability. Since the claimant has filed cross objections and as the same are not maintainable in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in “New India Assurance Company Limited, Dindigal, Tamil Nadu State and another v. Vasireddy Sujatharani (2011 (5) ALD 156 (DB). As per the record after filing of the appeal, the claimant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. By taking into consideration of the death of the claimant and the disability suffered by him, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to interfere with the awarding of Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injuries sustained by the claimant, however, the same cannot be taken as precedent and it is considered only in the peculiar circumstances of this case. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future amenities in life, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges and Rs.3,000/- towards extra nourishment. As the appellant is not disputing about the awarding of the said amounts, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. Thus, the claimant is entitled for (Rs.11,76,000 + Rs.40,000 + Rs.38,000) Rs.12,54,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% on the compensation amount, but as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” the claimant is entitled for interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation amount. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is reduced from Rs.13,38,000/- to Rs.12,54,000/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the compensation from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Cross objections, filed by the claimant, are rejected as not maintainable. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:28-10-2011 Ksp