THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CM.A.No.3519 of 2003 Dated: 16-12-2010 Between: Subash Gada ………..Petitioner and The National Insurance Company Limited, rep. by its Regional Manager, Basheerbagh, Hydeabad. …………Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.3519 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 is directed against the award dated 18-04-2003, passed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabd, in O.P.No.1812 of 1999, filed by the appellant- claimant claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident when he was travelling in a Tata Sumo Jeep bearing Regn. No.MP 09V 394 from Gulbarga to Hyderabad, the driver of the Jeep drove the vehicle with a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the stationed lorry bearing No.KA 04A 1543 from the backside and due to this sudden impact, the appellant sustained fracture of left femur shaft, fracture of right frontal bone and zygomatic bone, and other injuries all over the body. 2. Before the Court below, 1st respondent, who is the owner of the crime vehicle, remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurer of the crime vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Court below having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, and taking into account the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 and documents of Ex.A-1, F.I.R. and Ex.A-2, charge sheet, awarded Rs.2,61,000/- towards special damages (Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2,50,000/- towards medicines and extra- nourishment and attendant charges), and also awarded Rs.25,000/- towards general damages (Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards disability). Thus the petitioner was awarded a total sum of Rs.2,86,000/- (Rs.2,61,000/- (+) Rs.25,000/-). Not satisfied with the award passed by the Court below, the claimant-appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, especially with regard to the compensation awarded under the head of disability, contended that the appellant was aged 30 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. Exs.A-11 and A-12 are the disability certificates assessing the disability of the petitioner at 55%. But the Court below did not consider the same and erroneously awarded Rs.10,000/- towards disability on the ground that the Doctor who treated the appellant is not a qualified doctor. Therefore, he prayed that by taking into account the salary of the appellant as Rs.5,000/- per month and disability of 55%, the amount awarded by the Court below may be enhanced. 6. Learned counsel for R-2 contended that nearly after two years, the doctor has examined the appellant and issued disability certificate and further the doctor himself admitted that he has not mentioned the reasons for assessing the percentage of disability of 55%. Further there is no acceptable evidence to confirm the disability at a particular percentage. So the trial Court has correctly assessed the income of the appellant and based on the documents Exs.A-12 and A-13, rightly awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards disability and therefore, it cannot be enhanced at all. 7. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the appellant sustained fracture of left femur shaft and other injuries. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,61,000/- towards special damages (Rs.6,000/- towards loss of earnings, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.2,50,000/- towards medicines and extra- nourishment and attendant charges), which, in my considered opinion, may not be interfered with and the same is confirmed. 8. So far as the award of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Court below towards disability is concerned, the Court below has to consider Ex.A-13, salary certificate, wherein the income of the appellant shows as Rs.5,000/- per month, but, however, as none was examined to prove the same, the salary of the appellant may be taken as Rs.3,500/- per month. If it takes at Rs.3,500/- per month, the annual income of the appellant comes to Rs.42,000/-. Further, the doctor has given Ex.A-12 disability certificate, but as he is not a qualified doctor and the trial Court also has not believed the version of the doctor, the disability of the appellant may be taken as 30% only. So the annual income of the appellant comes to Rs.12,600/-. The correct multiplier to be adopted with regard to the age of the appellant is ‘16’. Hence, the total loss of disability comes to Rs.2,01,600/- (12,600/- (X) 16 = 2,01,600/-). So far as the award of Rs.15,000/- granted by the Court below towards pain and suffering is concerned, it may be reduced to Rs.10,000/- only as there were no injuries to the eye or ear and no permanent disability was noticed when he appeared before the Court below. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a total sum of Rs.4,72,600/- (Rs.2,61,000/- (+) Rs.2,01,600/- (+) Rs.10,000/-) 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part holding that the appellant-claimant is entitled for Rs.1,86,600/- (Rs.4,72,600/- (-) Rs.2,86,000/-) as enhancement of compensation with 7% interest on the enhanced amount from the date of this order till the date of realization. The award in O.P.No.1812 of 1999, dated 18-04-2003, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 16, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr