IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Nos.4251 and 4256 of 2004 C.M.A.No.4251 of 2004 Between: B. Subba Rao, .. Appellant AND V. Srinivasa reddy and another .. Respondents C.M.A.No.4256 of 2004 Between: B. Padmavathi .. Appellant AND V. Srinivasa reddy and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: These appeals are directed against the awards dated 30-08- 2004 in MVOP.Nos.366 of 2003 and 344 of 2003 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur, arising out of the same accident. As common questions of law and fact are involved in both the appeals arising out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment at request and with consent. The claimants in both the cases are husband and wife going on their TVS Moped on 31-08-2002 at about 11.00 P.M. and near Pulladigunta village, Maruthi Car No.AP-09-AN-0781 dashed against the moped resulting in fall of both the claimants and infliction of injuries on their persons. The husband received fractures in the right fore arm and right leg and both had received multiple injuries all over the body. Both of them were treated at Peoples Trauma and Emergency Hospital, Guntur and Vatticherukuru Police registered Crime No.51 of 2002. The couple claimed to be coolies earning Rs.100/- per day and claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the owner and insurer of Maruthi car claiming to have been disabled from doing any work after the accident in spite of treatment. While the owner of the vehicle remained ex parte in both the claims, the insurer denied the allegations of the claimants or any rash and negligent driving of Maruthi car or the car driver holding a valid driving licence or the car having any permit or insurance. The insurer denied any disability caused to the wife and husband and questioned the liability to pay any compensation. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the claimants to compensation. In each of the claims, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were marked. In MVOP.No.366 of 2003, Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked, while in MVOP.No.344 of 2003, Ex.X.1 was marked. The Tribunal rendered the impugned awards firstly accepting the claims of the injured PW.1 in each case corroborated by Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.2- Charge sheet in each case and uncontroverted by any evidence for the respondents for fixing the responsibility for the accident on the car driver. In assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted in MVOP.No.366 of 2003 that the claimant being injured and treated was corroborated by Exs.A.3, X.1 and X.2 and spoken to by PWs.1 and 2. The fracture injuries on the right fore arm and right leg were considered grievous, while PW.2 also stated that the sensory and motor power of right upper limb was lost due to the injury causing permanent disability of 60%. The Tribunal took the annual income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-, his age as 62 years and on application of a multiplier of 5, awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for 60% disability. While not accepting the printed bills, but accepting the computerized bills, the Tribunal awarded Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses as limited by the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act as against Rs.19,707/- proved expenses. On the total compensation of Rs.45,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 9% p.a. and proportionate costs against both the respondents jointly and severally. In MVOP.No.344 of 2003, the Tribunal referred to Ex.A.3- wound certificate and the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, apart from Ex.A.1-Case sheet to conclude that the claimant suffered a disability of 10 to 15% due to the fracture of lower end of right radius, fracture of right ribs and debridement of the wound. The Tribunal assessed the annual income of the claimant at Rs.10,000/-, applied a multiplier of 5 for the age of 60 years and arrived at a compensation of Rs.7,500/- for 15% permanent disability. The Tribunal permitted only Rs.5,730/- towards medical expenses covered by computerized bills and refused to act upon the printed bills. On the total compensation of Rs.13,230/-, interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and costs were awarded against both the respondents jointly and severally. The claimants were aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and in the appeals, they claimed that the medical bills ought not to have been ignored, the gravity of injuries ought to have been appreciated and the balance of compensation claimed ought not to have been refused. Heard Sri T. S. Rayalu, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Suresh Kumar Routhu, learned counsel representing Sri Bathula Raj Kiran, learned standing counsel for 2nd respondent- insurer in both the cases. The 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle in both the cases was unrepresented before this Court. Insofar as the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the driver of the vehicle for the accident with his rash and negligent driving is concerned, none of the parties challenged the same. The ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent being not in dispute, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to justly and adequately compensate the claimants for the injuries and their consequences suffered due to the accident. The claimants in both the cases were aged 62 and 60 years by the time of accident and if the multiplier method were to be taken as the basis for arriving at the appropriate amount towards loss of future earning power due to the permanent disability, the multiplier applicable would have been ‘7’ as held in Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and not ‘5’ as adopted by the Tribunal. Even if there is no positive evidence before the Tribunal about the quantum of earnings of the claimants, the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself attributes a notional income of Rs.15,000/-p.a. even to a non-earning person in its Second Schedule and any assessment could not have been less. If so, the total loss of income for both the claimants would have been Rs.1,05,000/- and because the claimant in MVOP.No.366 of 2003 suffered a disability of 60% and as his inability to do any work with right hand practically disabled him from carrying on his avocation as a labourer, loss of future earning capacity also can be assessed at the same percentage. If so, the claimant would have been entitled to a minimum of Rs.60,000/- under that head. Insofar as the medical bills are concerned, the Tribunal restricted the sum of Rs.15,000/- in spite of holding that Rs.19,707/- were the expenses proved. Any reference to the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act for restricting the medical expenses is not appropriate as the petition for compensation was under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, the balance of Rs.4,707/- also should have been granted to the claimant. The Tribunal did not grant any damages towards damage to clothing, attendant charges during the period of hospitalization and disablement, extra nourishment and other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages and therefore, rounding off the enhancement to be granted to Rs.40,000/- will be answering the need to grant just and adequate compensation to the claimant in MVOP.No.366 of 2003. Insofar as the claimant in MVOP.No.344 of 2003 is concerned, for 15% disability certified by the medical expert, she will be entitled to Rs.22,500/- towards loss of future earning power and deducting the compensation of Rs.7,500/- already granted under that head, she will be entitled to the remaining Rs.15,000/-. While the medical expenses were only to the extent of Rs.5,730/-, no damages were awarded towards attendant charges, damage to clothing, extra nourishment and other miscellaneous heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages towards which a further sum of Rs.5,000/- can be considered to be granted. Enhancing the compensation by Rs.20,000/- will be answering the need to grant just and adequate compensation in this case. Therefore, both the awards have to be modified accordingly. But, in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid on the enhanced compensation, it can be restricted to 6% p.a., while proportionate costs, of course, should be granted on the enhanced compensation. In the result, the award in MVOP.No.366 of 2003 dated 30- 08-2004 is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the award in MVOP.No.344 of 2003 dated 30-08-2004 is modified by awarding a further compensation of Rs.20,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and both the appeals are allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 22-03-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298