THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 And CMA NO. 214 OF 2008 DATED: 08.02.2012 CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 Between: Gaddam Vishwanadham and others .. Appellant And Mukhim Ahmed and others .. Respondents CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 Between: Gaddam Vaikuntam .. Appellant And Mukhim Ahmed and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 And CMA NO. 214 OF 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard Sri V.Ravi Kiran Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri R.Venkat Rao and M.V.S.Sai Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. 2. C.M.A.No.1320 of 2004 is filed by the claimants against the award dated 02.03.1994 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.216 of 1993. 3. M.A.C.M.A.No.214 of 2008 is filed by the claimant against the award dated 02.03.1995 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal cum I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.367 of 1993. 4. Since both the appeals arise out of the same accident, they are being disposed of by the following common judgment. 5. In both the appeals, quantum of compensation has been challenged by the appellants on the ground that it is not adequate. It is settled law that the Court has to grant compensation which is just and reasonable even though it is in excess of the amount that is claimed in the claim petition. CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 6. In this appeal, the deceased Gaddam Vajramma was aged 50 years on the date of accident and she is the wife of the first appellant and mother of the appellants 2 to 4. On 15.11.1992 she was proceeding in an auto rickshaw bearing No.AAT 608 at about 7.30 AM and while she was on the way at C.S.P. crossing in power house colony, Godavarikhani, the lorry bearing No.ADT 7169 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed the auto rickshaw, as a result of which, she and her son, appellant in CMA No.214 of 2008, who were proceeding in the auto rickshaw fell down and received severe injuries. Ultimately as a result of the injuries sustained in the accident she died and her son sustained permanent disability. 7. In C.M.A.No.1320 of 2004, the learned Tribunal expressed the view that the deceased was aged 50 years and it was not mentioned in the claim petition about her doing any business or discharging of any functions at the kirana shop at Mancherial, and considered her to be only a house wife. The learned Tribunal further expressed the view that the petitioners were not depending on the deceased and therefore, awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards loss to the estate and an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life. The Tribunal further granted RS.3,000/- towards transport charges. 8. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the way in which the claim made by the claimants for compensation on account of the death of the deceased had been dealt with by the Tribunal is totally erroneous and contrary to law. In the claim petition, the income of the deceased was mentioned as Rs.1,000/-. This amount being within the income of non earning person, the learned tribunal ought to have considered the said income for the purpose of computing the compensation. The learned Tribunal in the considered opinion of this Court ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.15,000/- which is recorded in the Second Schedule for non-earning persons. From this 1/3rd has to be deducted which comes to Rs.5.000/- towards personal and living expenses and the contribution to the family comes to Rs.10,000/-. As per the judgment in Sarala Varma and others V Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the multiplier relevant to the age of the deceased is ‘13’. To arrive at the loss of dependency, the above said amount has to be capitalized with ‘13’. i.e. Rs.10,000/- x 13 = Rs.1,30,000/-. This apart, the first appellant, who is the husband of the deceased is entitled for Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium. The appellants are entitled for further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/- towards funeral expenses. In all, the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.1,50,000/-. The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The learned Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.68,000/- towards compensation. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.1,50,000/- minus Rs.68,000/- = Rs.82,000/-. CMA NO. 214 OF 2008 9. The appellant/injured is the son of the deceased in C.M.A.No.1320 of 2004. As could be seen from Ex.A.1-certified copy of the wound certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Godavarikhani, the appellant received the following injuries: (i)lacerated wound 2 cms left ear lobe and it was simple in nature, (ii) lacerated wound mandible 3 cms in mouth between 1,2 right incisor and it was grievous in nature (iii) swelling and deformity of left shoulder, as there was a fracture of neck of left scapula and it was grievous in nature (iv) lacerated wound 3 cms right middle finger and it was simple in nature and (v) fracture of 1st, 2nd and 5th on left side. The learned Tribunal found that it is not mentioned in the wound certificate that any of the injuries sustained by the appellant are grievous in nature. However, subsequently, he was admitted in Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore and it was found that as per Ex.A.28, after the treatment, he is unable to bend the elbow and its movements are restricted in the shoulder and the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that he had no other significant medical history. 10. PW.3, the Orthopedic Surgeon stated in his evidence that the claimant’s left hand was paralysed and he (PW.2) cannot use his left upper limb and he assessed the disability at 60%. Ex.A.64 is the disability certificate. The Tribunal, however, basing on evidence of PW.3 proceeded to hold that it appears that the other injuries are healed and there is disability caused by one injury to the left upper arm. Under various heads, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/- and the said compensation was not properly computed. An amount of Rs.10,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges, and Rs.50,000/- towards permanent disability. In all, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Admittedly, the injured claimant is a businessman. The photographs filed by the appellant clearly show that the left hand of the appellant has been paralyzed. As could be seen from Ex.A.26 certificate of license produced by him, he has fair-price shop on the date of accident. His family was running a kirana shop in their village. The learned Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the injured for the said purpose as Rs.2,000/- per month. Therefore, his annual income comes to Rs.24,000/-. According to PW.3, the doctor, the injured-claimant sustained 60% disability as his left hand was completely paralysed. He was aged 32 years and as per the judgment in Sarala Varma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[2], the multiplier relevant to his age is ‘16’. To arrive at loss of future earnings, the amount has to be capitalized with ‘16’. i.e. Rs.24,,000/- x 16 x 60 divided by 100 = Rs.2,30,400/-. The amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal viz. Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transport to hospital have to be added. In all, the appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.2,60,400/- as compensation. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.2,60,400/- minus Rs.80,000/- = Rs.1,80,400/-. The interest granted at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per from the date of petition till the date of realisation. 11. C.M.A.No.1320 of 2004 is partly allowed with the enhancement in the compensation and reduction in the rate of interest as afore stated. 12. C.M.A.No.214 of 2008 is allowed enhancing the compensation amount and reduction in the rate of interest as aforesaid. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ Date: 08.02.2012 R. KANTHA RAO, J kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO CMA NO. 1320 OF 2004 And CMA NO. 214 OF 2008 DATED: 08.02.2012 [1] 2009 ACJ 1298 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298