THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1618 OF 2002 Kasegalla Ramesh v. Mohammed Ibrahim and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1618 OF 2002. Oral Judgment: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- I Addl. District Judge, Kurnool. The facts in brief are that the appellant-claimant on 27-8-1999 while he was proceeding to Anantapur from Hyderabad boarding the accident vehicle-lorry as a cleaner and that when the lorry reached near Venkanna Bavi, the driver of the lorry drove it at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and the lorry turned turtle, as a result of which, the appellant being cleaner of the lorry sustained multiple and grievous injuries. The appellant was shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and thereafter he was shifted to Osmania Government General Hospital, Hyderabad. On account of the accidental injuries the claimant suffered permanent disability and he lost the earning capacity and hence filed the above O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex-parte, the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition. On the basis of the rival claims, appropriate issues were framed and on behalf of the claimant P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents Exs.B-1and B-2 were marked. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence of the appellant-claimant coupled with Exs.A.1 and A.2 came to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry drove it in rash and negligent manner, causing injuries to the appellant and granted compensation of Rs.25,000/- to be payable by the owner of the vehicle, who remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. The only contention that was advanced before this Court is as to adequacy or otherwise of the compensation amount granted by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the evidence of the doctor with regard to the percentage of disability and also erred in holding that the 2nd respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. No other contentions were advanced before this Court. The Tribunal considering the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1-FIR, Ex.A.2 wound certificate, Ex.A.4 certified copy of the charge-sheet and the Ex.A.8 Motor Vehicle Inspector’s report, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry, and in the absence of any contra evidence adduced by the respondents, the same needs no interference by this Court. With regard to quantum of compensation, it is in the evidence that the appellant was aged about 20 years at the time of accident, and as per Ex.A.2 wound certificate total number of injuries sustained by the appellant are 4 in number, out of which the fracture was completely healed. As per doctor-P.W.2 the percentage of disability sustained by the claimant is 20%, however, the same was not approved by the Tribunal and thus, the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards loss of future earnings. However, the fact remains is that the appellant received injuries and that the 2nd injury is a fracture and that other injuries are simple in nature, and that as far as 2nd injury is concerned the appellant is unfit for doing cleaner work on lorry and thus it can be quantified that the disability sustained by the claimant at 20%, as stated by the doctor P.W.2. Since the claimant was working as cleaner by taking nominal income at Rs.3000/- per month as per second schedule of the Act, and by applying the multiplier 18 for the age of 20 years the loss of future earnings comes can be assed at Rs.54,000/- ( i.e. Rs.3000 x 20% x 12 x 18 ). Apart from that an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.1000/- towards medicine totaling to Rs.75,000/-. In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed-in part granting total compensation of Rs.75,000-, with 7.5% interest per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till realization. No costs. GM, J 17-6-2010/ kk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1618 of 2002 24-6-2010