THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.609 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to M.V.O.P.No.716 of 2000, dated 25-10-2002 on the file of the III Additional District Judge-cum-Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool. This is a case of injuries. On 13-05-2000, while the claimant and her son were proceeding in a motor cycle, the Tractor bearing registration No.AP 21 T 3504 belonging to the first respondent herein, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the motor cycle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained fracture to her right leg. The claimant, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. The first respondent (owner of the vehicle) filed his counter and denied his liability. The second respondent, Insurance Company, denied its liability on the ground that the policy was not valid on the date of accident. The third respondent bank denied its liability on the ground that the vehicle was merely under hypothecation and it had no possession or control over the operation of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Since this appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to the rash and negligence need not be gone into. On a consideration of the evidence, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earning, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,500/- towards attendant charges, in all Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of earning capacity on the ground that the claimant did not suffer any disability and negatived the claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Heard the learned counsel for both parties. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15 to 20% and the appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month and on this basis the Tribunal ought to have awarded Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation towards loss of earning capacity. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent (owner) would contend that the amount awarded is just and reasonable and does not require any interference. In order to establish the disability, the claimant examined the Doctor as P.W.2. P.W.2 stated that he was working as Assistant Professor of Orthopedic, Government General Hospital, Kurnool. He stated that the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 13-05-2000 with fracture of both bones of the legs on the right side. Plate and screws fixation was done on 23-05-2000 and she was discharged on 05-06-2000. P.W.2 again examined her on 09-04-2002 and found the plate and screws are in position and she developed tenderness over the fracture side, tenderness over the graft donar area over the left hip and she is not able to sit or squat properly. He found that the percentage of the disability was between 15 to 20%. He denied the suggestion that there was no permanent disability sustained by the claimant. From the evidence of P.W.2 and the wound certificate Ex.A3, it is evident that the claimant suffered some disability. In fact, the Tribunal did not doubt the injuries sustained by the claimant and the treatment received by her. The Tribunal in fact relied on Ex.A5 and awarded compensation towards medical expenses, extra nourishment and attendant charges. Since the evidence of P.W.2, who examined her two years after the accident, clearly opined that there was tenderness over the fracture side and over the graft donar area on the left hip and taking into consideration that she was not able to sit or squat properly, it is reasonable to infer that the disability would be at least 10%. The Tribunal took the income of the claimant at Rs.1,500/- per month at the rate of Rs.50/- per day. The age of the deceased was 40 years. Therefore, taking into consideration the income at Rs.1500/- per month, the applicable multiplier 15 and the disability at 10%, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs.27,000/- (1500 x 12 x 15 x 10/100 = 27,000). The appellant is, therefore, entitled for a compensation of Rs.27,000/- towards loss of earning capacity. The claimant impleaded the owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the State Bank of India as respondents 2 and 3. The offending vehicle was covered by Insurance Policy, which was earlier valid from 04-07-1998 to 03-07-1999. Again fresh insurance policy Ex.B3 was obtained valid from 10-06-2000 to 09-06-2001. Therefore, from 04-07-1999 to 09-06-2000 the vehicle was not covered by insurance policy. The accident took place on 13-05-2000. It is therefore evident that as on the date of accident there was no policy in respect of the offending vehicle. Further, the vehicle is said to have been hypothecated to the third respondent State Bank of India, apparently, on the purchase of the vehicle from the loan obtained from the said bank. The Tribunal therefore rightly dismissed the claim against respondents 2 and 3. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above against the respondent No.1. The appellant is entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of the petition till the date of realization. No costs. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 09th July, 2010. skmr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.609 of 2003 Date : 09-07-2010 Between : N.Rama Subbamma .. Appellant And Md.Jaffar and two others .. Respondents