THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.NO.1769 OF 2003 DT. .10.2010 Between: Vadde Surendra …………Appellant Vs. J.Vani Sree and another ………………Respondents. JUDGMENT: The petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 18.12.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.508 of 2001 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Kurnool, whereby a total compensation of Rs.45,000/- was awarded with interest at 9% per annum as against a total claim of Rs.2,10,000/-, filed the present appeal, alleging inter alia, on the following grounds: That though the appellant-petitioner suffered 25% disability due to shortening of his right leg as well as restriction of the movements thereof, the Tribunal had considered it to be at 10%; that the Tribunal failed to consider that because of the injuries suffered by the appellant- petitioner in the accident, he lost the future prospects and amenities of his life and the Tribunal failed to award a just compensation therefor; that the Tribunal erred in not awarding medical expenses to the extent of the claim of Rs.15,000/-, though medical bills for more than Rs.13,000/- were filed under Ex.A-7 and that the Tribunal also erred in awarding a meagre amount of Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs.25,000/- being claimed by the appellant-petitioner under the said head. 2. The facts in brief are that on 30.11.2000, the appellant-petitioner being a Cleaner along with Driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-T-6642 was going from Peapully Village to go to Guntakal and when it reached near R.T.C.Bus Depot, Guntakal on 01.12.2000 at about 12.30 a.m., another lorry bearing registration No.A.P.21-T-9468 came at high speed from the opposite direction being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against their lorry and as a result thereof, the appellant-petitioner and the driver of the lorry sustained injuries. The appellant/petitioner was treated at G.G.H., Kurnool for the injuries suffered by him; that P.S., Guntakal registered Cr.No.119 of 2000 against the accident lorry driver under Sections 337 and 338 I.P.C. 3. The first respondent-owner of the accident lorry remained ex parte. The second respondent Insurance Company contested the matter. It denied that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-21-T 9468. It also denied the disability suffered by the appellant-petitioner and alleged that the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-22-T-6642 on which, the appellant/petitioner was working as a Cleaner was not holding a valid driving licence and that the suit claim is excessive. 4. Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the Tribunal framed relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of a lorry bearing No.AP.21-T-9468 and as to the entitlement of the appellant/petitioner to claim compensation and as to the liability of the respondents to pay the same. 5. In support of his case, the appellant/petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 besides examining the Doctor, who treated him for the injuries caused in the accident as PW-2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. No witnesses were examined and no documents were marked on behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, except marking Ex.B-1 copy of Insurance Policy by consent. 6. The Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence of the claim petitioner, who was examined as PW-1 coupled with Ex.A-1-F.I.R., and Ex.A.3-Calendar Judgment in C.C.No.487 of 2000 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntakal, answered the first issue positively that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing registration No.AP.21-T-9468. So far as the liability part is concerned, the Tribunal taking into consideration Ex.B- 1-copy of Insurance Policy, according to which, the accident vehicle was registered with second respondent Insurance Company and the same was in force by the date of the accident and also considering Ex.A-3 certified copy of Calendar and Judgment in the criminal case, it has fastened the joint and several liability on the first respondent-owner of the vehicle and the second respondent-Insurer thereof. So far as the earnings of the appellant/petitioner are concerned, no supporting documents were filed to prove the same, except the self-serving evidence of PW-1. Therefore, the Tribunal had fixed his annual income at Rs.15,000/-. Considering the evidence of PW-2-the medical witnesses, who treated the appellant/petitioner soon after the accident, the Tribunal fixed the disability suffered by the appellant/petitioner at 10%, though PW-2 testified that the appellant/petitioner had suffered 22% to 25% permanent disability. 7. It is the contention of the appellant/petitioner that the Tribunal was not justified in not considering the evidence of PW-2 that he suffered permanent disability between 22% to 25%, since his right leg was not only shortened by one inch due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident, but the movement thereof was also restricted. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the evidence of PW-2 and fixed the permanent disability accordingly. As such, he contended that the amount of Rs.24,000/- awarded under the head disability by taking into consideration the disability at 10% is not just and reasonable. 8. Learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company submits that though the appellant/claimant claimed to be working as Cleaner on a lorry and earning Rs.2,000,/- per month, the Tribunal disbelieved his evidence in the absence of oral and documentary evidence. In the circumstances, the lower Tribunal fixed his earnings notionally by following second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, treating him as a non-earning person; that though Ex.A-2 and also as per the evidence of PW-2-medical witness, the appellant/claimant is alleged to have suffered disability between 22% to 25%, the Tribunal fixed the said disability at 10% only considering that the movements are restricted only due to shortening of lower limb by one inch; that since the appellant/claimant was aged about 19 years at the time of the accident, the proper multiplier ’16’ was taken into consideration and the loss of dependency was fixed at Rs.24,000/-. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects as against the claim of Rs.20,000/-. However, he submits that the Tribunal rejected the claim of the appellant/claimant of Rs.25,000/- towards disability and dis-figuration since Rs.24,000/- was awarded towards future loss of dependency.The learned counsel further submits that though the claimant claimed Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.6,000/- under the said head. The learned counsel further submits that the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses, disbelieving Ex.A-7-bunch of medical bills, since they were not properly presented and that they were not signed by the issuing authority and since the corresponding prescriptions were not produced. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal after considering the entire material on record, awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/- and as such, the question of enhancing the same does not arise. 9. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the record. 10. It is to be seen that the Tribunal had taken the income of the appellant-petitioner at Rs.15,000/- per annum as per Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act since the appellant-petitioner has not proved his income at Rs.2,000/- per month. A Doctor, who treated the appellant- petitioner, was examined as PW.2. His evidence indicates that the right lower limb of the appellant-petitioner is shortened and his movements are restricted and he is unable to walk. In such a situation, this court is of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken the permanent disability at 20% instead of 10% since the nature of the disability suffered by the appellant- petitioner would affect his future earning prospects. Except the above, the amount awarded by the Tribunal under other heads cannot be interfered with since it is just and reasonable compensation. 11. Therefore, it is to be held that the appellant-petitioner has suffered 20% permanent disability and he is entitled to Rs.48,000/- under loss of future earnings due to permanent disability (i.e. Rs.15,000 x 20/100 x 16). Thus, in all the appellant-petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.69,000/- (Rupees Sixty Nine Thousand) only (i.e. Rs.48,000/- towards loss of future earnings due to 20% permanent disability, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of marriage prospects of appellant-petitioner, Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses). 12. With this modification, the C.M.A. is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 21 -10-2010 Stp/Tjs