THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 878 of 2000 DATED: 20.11.2009 BETWEEN: K.Sattaiah .. Appellant And A.Manohar Goud and another .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 878 of 2000 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant against the award and decree, dated 27.10.1999 passed in O.P.No.1082 of 1997 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. The injured claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant. He filed the claim petition under Section 16 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 01.06.1997. As against his claim, the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.30,000/- together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred this appeal claiming enhancement of compensation. 3. I have heard Sri M.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri A.V.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.2- insurance company. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that as per the evidence of PW.2, the doctor, who treated the claimant/appellant in Osmania General Hospital and also from the contents of Ex.X.1 case sheet relating to the claimant/appellant the claimant was admitted in the hospital on 1.6.1997 at about 4.15 PM having sustained fracture of both bones of right leg and he was treated by applying POP on the same day, and on 7.6.1997 he was permitted to go home to attend his daughter’s marriage, but did not turn up again for further treatment. However, the doctor stated that he examined the claimant and his examination revealed that the fracture is mal united with shortening, coupled with swelling pain and limp and there is restriction of movements at knee joint and severe restriction of movements at ankle joints and that the claimant is complaining of pain and limping. He assessed the disability suffered by the claimant at 40%. It is also the evidence of PW2 that the claimant cannot attend the normal work and he cannot walk properly. 5. The Tribunal upon perusing the case sheet and the evidence of PW.2 arrived at the opinion that the claimant left the hospital against the medical advise to attend his daughter’s marriage and he suffered disability due to fracture of right leg owing to his negligence. However, the learned Tribunal accepted the contention of the appellant that he was aged about 38 years on the date of accident and he can be reasonably expected to earn Rs.2,000/- per month. In the opinion of the Tribunal, even though the claimant cannot continue his profession as toddy tapper, can do some other work even with the disability that he had incurred. The Tribunal, therefore, having accepted that the claimant received two grievous injuries and also sustained permanent disability, granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for permanent disability as well as loss of future income and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering and loss of amenities in life. 6. Now the point for consideration in this appeal is: whether the compensation granted by the learned tribunal deserves to be enhanced? 7. It is true that in the light of the positive evidence that the negligence of the claimant in leaving the hospital against the medical advice to attend his daughter’s marriage, the learned Tribunal held that his conduct contributed for his sustaining permanent disability. In any event the fact that he sustained two grievous injuries and ultimately suffered permanent disability cannot be overlooked. However, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, which are narrated hereinabove, it is not possible for the Court to grant compensation towards loss of earnings on the basis of multiplier method. But the compensation which was granted by the learned Tribunal is undoubtedly inadequate even if it is considered that the claimant/appellant suffered compound fracture on the right lower 1/3rd of leg and tibia exposed about 2 cm above skin. On considering the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant/appellant and also the permanent disability suffered by him, an amount of Rs.30,000/- can be granted to the claimant/appellant towards permanent disability sustained by him and an amount of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all the claimant/appellant is entitled for an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation. The enhancement therefore, would be Rs.10,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date: 20.11.2009 kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 878 of 2000 DATED: 20.11.2009