THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR C.M.A.NO.3074 OF 2000 Dt.17.11.2009 Between: Islavath Laxmi and two others. ………………..Appellants. Vs. The Regional Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ………………..Respondent. JUDGMENT: This is an appeal by the claimants, who are dis-satisfied with the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nalgonda, in awarding the compensation of Rs.32,000/- aggregate in O.P.No.257 of 1997, dt.23.09.2000. The claimant initially filed a claim petition seeking compensation for the injuries. Later, since he died pending O.P., his Legal Representatives i.e., his wife and parents were brought on record as claimants 2 to 4. The accident in question occurred on 04.03.1994, when the deceased-first claimant was walking on a road, a lorry bearing No.K.A. 22 4969 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against him. The said accident resulted in serious injuries to both the legs of the said first claimant and required prolonged hospitalisation. The claimant states that he was treated at different hospitals including Government Civil Hospital, Miryalaguda, Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad, Nizams Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad and Parijatha Nursing Home at Miryalaguda. It is alleged that he was earning Rs.60/- per day as agricultural labour and claimed compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- for the aforesaid injuries. Before the Tribunal below, PW-1 who is the father of the deceased- first claimant was examined. PW-2 is said to be a witness to the accident was also examined and Ex.A-1-Certified Copy of F.I.R., Ex.A-2-Out Patient Chit, Ex.A-3-Injury Certificate were marked. Ex.A-4 is the Death Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer, Nidmanoor, dt.18.12.1997, which is subsequent to the filing of the O.P., and is not relevant. Ex.A-6 is the Medical Certificate in respect of Orthopaedically Handicapped Candidate, dt.15.01.1995. The Tribunal below however found that there is no evidence to establish the earnings of the deceased nor there is any evidence with respect to the disability said to have been caused to the first claimant. The Tribunal therefore awarded Rs.10,000/- each towards two grievous injuries suffered by the first claimant and to that amount, added the further conventional amounts under the head of pain and suffering at Rs.5,000/-, loss of earnings at Rs.5,000/- and medical reimbursement for prolonged hospitalisation at Rs.2,000/-, aggregating to Rs.32,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants, who submits that the earnings of the deceased have not been taken into consideration by the Court and awarding only a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of future earnings is highly in-adequate and cannot be said to be just and reasonable. It is also contended that the claimant’s photographs with negatives were filed before the Tribunal but no documents were marked. The evidence of PW-1 shows that the deceased first claimant suffered such serious and grievous injuries to his legs and it requires complete grafting of the skin for both the legs, which requires prolonged medical treatment and even after that, he was not completely cured. Ultimately, the first claimant died after three years of the accident. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and I have seen the evidence of PW-1. It is true that there is no independent evidence let in by the claimants in support of the amounts spent towards medical treatment nor there is any evidence relating to the monthly earnings of the deceased. I have to therefore go by the monthly earnings of the deceased at a minimum of Rs.100/- per month, even as an agricultural labour. He was aged 23 years and the injury suffered by him for both the legs were such that it requires skin grafting and involved very prolonged medical treatment and hospitalisation. For the said two injuries, the Tribunal below awarded Rs.10,000/- each, which appears to be highly in-adequate. Considering the period of hospitalisation alone, apart from medical expenses towards nourishment and medicine, which the deceased-first claimant must have spent, in the absence of any evidence, however, only a reasonable amount on the said account can be granted. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- each, for the said grievous injuries, totalling to Rs.50,000/- as against aggregate of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. Further, the prolonged hospitalisation of the first claimant being not in dispute, it could have necessarily resulted in complete loss of earnings from the said period and ultimately he died after a period of three years from the date of accident. Therefore, either for medical expenses or loss of earnings, another sum of Rs.5,000/- would atleast be reasonable for him. This appeal shall stand allowed accordingly, by enhancing the compensation at an aggregate of Rs.75,000/- as against Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards injuries and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings. The rest of the claim, namely, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2,000/- towards medicine as awarded by the Tribunal shall remain un-disturbed. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the said enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition, till realisation. No costs. _____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR J., Dt.17.11.2009 Tjs