THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No.4577 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the award dated 07-09-2004, passed by the IV Additional Chief Judge-cum-Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for brevity ‘the Tribunal’), in O.P.No.1334 of 2002, filed by the claimant-appellant claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the cause of injuries sustained by him, in a motor accident when he was driving an auto bearing Regn. No.AP 11V 6047, proceeding from L.B.Nagar cross roads towards Hayatnagar, slowly from the left side of the road and when he reached near Chintalkunta bus stage, a lorry bearing Regn. No.AP 11T 9891, driven with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, came in opposite direction, and dashed his auto, due to that sudden impact, he and inmates of his auto fell down and he sustained multiple fractures of both bones of right leg, left fracture of head and fracture of lower jaw etc. 2. Before the Tribunal, respondents 1 and 2, who are the owners of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent, which is the Insurer of the offending vehicle, filed the counter and contested the claim denying all the allegations made in the petition. 3. The Tribunal 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 besides P.Ws.2 and 3 and documents of Exs.A-1 to A-10, awarded Rs.5,81,925/- towards total compensation under the following heads: 1.Medical Expenses : 3,55,925/- 2.Attendant Charges : 6,000/- 3.Transport charges : 2,000/- 4.Extra nourishment : 3,000/- 5.Permanent disability : 2,10,000/- 6.Plain and suffering : 5,000/- ------------------ Total : 5,81,925/- --------------------- Not satisfied with the award passed by the Tribunal, the claimant-appellant filed the present appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the 3rd respondent-insurer and perused the entire material available on record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, especially with regard to the compensation under the head of permanent disability, contended that at the time of accident, the appellant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month, apart from that Rs.50/- per day as batta. Even according to the Minimum Wages Act, an amount of Rs.4,000/- can be taken as minimum monthly income of the auto drivers. But however, the Tribunal failed to grant such amount. He further contended that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. In fact, the appellant suffered 80% disability in view of the injuries and fractures sustained by him. Therefore, the compensation granted towards pain and suffering may be enhanced. Hence, he prays to enhance the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned standing counsel for R-3 contended that there is no acceptable evidence to confirm the claim of medical expenditure and disability. The Tribunal after considering oral and documentary evidence, granted more than the compensation actually the appellant is entitled to. So the Tribunal has correctly assessed the income of the appellant and rightly awarded an amount of Rs.5,81,925/- towards total compensation, hence, 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 offending vehicle, the accident occurred and due to which, the appellant sustained fracture injuries and unable to move from bed. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3,55,925/- towards Medical Expenses, Rs.6,000/- towards Attendant Charges, Rs.2,000/- towards Transport charges, Rs.3,000/- towards Extra nourishment, which, in my considered opinion, may not be interfered with and the same are confirmed. 8. So far as the award of Rs.5,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is concerned, the Tribunal has to consider the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant. As shown in Ex.A-8, it is clear that the appellant suffered 80% of the disability. So in my considered view an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. Since the Tribunal already granted Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, if the said amount is deducted from Rs.15,000/-, it will come to Rs.10,000/-. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering in addition to the amount of Rs.5,000/- which was already granted by the Tribunal. 9. According to the appellant, he suffered 80% disability due to the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant was earning Rs.4,000/- per month at the time of accident. But however considering the minimum income of the auto drivers as per the Minimum Wages Act, an amount of Rs.2,500/- can be taken as monthly income of the appellant. Then his annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-. If 50% disability is taken, it will come to Rs.15000/- per annum. Considering the age of the applicant, the Tribunal adopted multiplier ‘15’. Hence, the loss of dependency comes to Rs.2,25,000/- (15,000/- X 15). Hence, the claimant is entitled to an mount of Rs.2,25,000/- towards permanent disability. Since the Tribunal already granted Rs.2,10,000/- towards permanent disability, if the said amount is deducted from Rs.2,25,000/-, it will come to Rs.15,000/-. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards permanent disability in addition to the amount of Rs2,10,000/- which was already granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, the total compensation under all the heads comes to Rs.6,06,925/- (Rs.3,55,925/- (+) Rs.6,000/- (+) Rs.2,000/- (+) Rs.3,000/-(+) Rs.2,25,000/-(+) Rs.15,000/-). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.6,06,925/- towards total compensation. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part holding that the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- (Rs.6,06,925/- (-) Rs.5,81,925/- ) 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.1334 of 2002, dated 07-09-2004, is modified accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________________ December 23, 2010 JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED kvr