THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1293 of 2000 JUDGMENT: The appellant was working as a Driver on an auto rickshaw. On 20.08.1997 on 6:30 am, he was traveling in an auto bearing No.AP-11U-3031 as a passenger. When the auto reached Takkellapally gate, Yacharam Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, a lorry bearing No.AP- 28T-4450 owned by the 2nd respondent, driven by the 1st respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent dashed against it and the appellant suffered serious fracture injures to the right hand and other injuries to the rest of the body. He filed O.P.No.1125 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Later on, he got amended the O.P, claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. The O.P. was contested by the 3rd respondent. It was pleaded that the accident occurred mostly on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the auto. The nature of injuries and other facts pleaded by the appellant were disputed. Through order, dated 14.12.1999, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,0000/- as compensation. Not satisfied with that, the appellant approached this Court. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal also. The appellant deposed as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who certified his disability was examined as P.W.2. Exs.A.1 to A.4 are the documents pertaining to the registration of case and report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Exs.A.5 to A.9 are the discharge slip, prescriptions etc. Ex.A.10 is the driving licence of the petitioner. Ex.A.11 is the photos and negatives showing disability and Ex.A.12 is the disability certificate. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal recorded a finding to the effect that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the lorry driver. As regards the quantum, the appellant pleaded that that he was earning Rs.4,00/- per month and his age at the time of accident was 25 years. The injury certificate i.e, Ex.A.4 discloses that the appellant suffered fracture injury to right hand besides bleeding injuries to the left side of the head and cut injury to the right side of the neck. He was treated in O.G.H. and NIMS for about eight months as impatient. Operations were said to have been conducted. Under Ex.A.12, the disability suffered by the appellant was certified as 50%. None of these aspects were taken into account and the Tribunal simply granted Rs.40,000/- towards permanent disability and loss of income. The approach of the Tribunal was totally fallacious. The appellant was entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. The treatments spread over eight months even in Government Hospital would involve expenditure of atleast Rs.50,000/- including extra nourishment. The fact that he was a driver is evident from Ex.A.10, the driving licence. Though he pleaded that his income was Rs.4,000/- per month, it can be taken atleast at Rs.2,000/- per month. The annual income would be Rs.24,000/-. 50% thereof would come to Rs.12,000/-. The multiplier applicable to a person of 25 years age is ‘17’. Loss of earning on account of the permanent disability would be Rs.2,04,000/-. The appellant suffered loss of income for a period of eight months and that would come to Rs.16,000/-. Thus, the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.2,90,000/-. Therefore, the C.M.A. is allowed enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,90,000/-. The Tribunal awarded interest at the rate of 12% per annum. That is excessive and the entire amount shall carry interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of order passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 09.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1293 of 2000 Date: 09.12.2011 JSU