IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.616 of 2003 Between: Ette Rosaiah ..... APPELLANT AND M. Paparao and another ..... RESPONDENTS JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the Claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded in M.V.O.P.No.895 of 1998 dated 17-08- 2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, whereunder the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.78,800/- towards compensation on account of injuries suffered by the appellant (Claimant). 2. On 23-06-1998 the Claimant was sitting in a stationary milk tanker bearing registration No.MTD 3627 at a bus stop at Vipparla village in Guntur district. A lorry bearing registration No.AEB-3348 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit the tanker. Due to the impact the claimant suffered grievous injuries. He was admitted in the Government Hospital, Narasaraopet and after first aid he was shifted to Amulya Nursing Home. He underwent a surgery on 24-06-1998. A steel rod was inserted to treat the fracture. Since he developed infection he was again admitted in the nursing home on 09-12-1998 and was under treatment till 19-12-1998. The claimant also underwent ‘V’ nailing operation on his right leg on that date and for the second time he was admitted in the hospital on 02-02-2001 for removal of screws inserted in the right leg. He, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The claimant examined himself as PW-1 and examined the Doctor as PW-2. Exs.A-1 to A-8 documents were filed on his behalf. The first respondent (owner of the vehicle) remained exparte. The second respondent – insurance company contested the claim. 4. The Tribunal formulated the necessary issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry and to what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled for and against whom. 5. Based on the evidence adduced the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No.AEB 3348 which is insured with the second respondent herein. 6. On a consideration of evidence of PW-2, Ex.A-3 wound certificate, Ex.A-5 Medical Certificate, Ex.A-6 medical prescriptions and Ex.A-7 x-ray film, the Tribunal held that the claimant sustained grievous injuries. An amount of Rs.25,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses which included the transport and extra-nourishment. Since the claimant did not file any medical bills to show the expenditure incurred, it cannot be said that the amount of Rs.25,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal is meager. 7. However, the Tribunal awarded Rs.21,600/- only towards loss of earning capacity. The income of the claimant was taken as Rs.1,200/- per month and by considering the immovability for a period of six months, adopting 15 multiplier fixed pecuniary loss at Rs.21,600/-. 8. The claimant in his evidence as PW-1 has stated that at the time of accident he was aged 26 years and earning Rs.70/- per day as agriculture labour. He stated that due to the accident he was unable to work as a coolie and that he is depending on his wife for his livelihood. He further stated that he was admitted in the hospital of Dr.Aravinda Babu at Narasaraopet and stayed in the hospital for two months five days. After undergoing operation he went for follow up treatment for about two months and he stayed at his house for about 2 months. As the injury did not heal properly he was again admitted in the hospital for 11 days and another operation was carried out. Again after a period of four months he was admitted in the hospital for removing the bolts from the leg. 9. PW-2 is a practicing Orthopedic Surgeon who treated the claimant. In his evidence, he stated that the claimant was admitted as inpatient on 09-12-1998 and discharged on 19-12-1998. It is stated that the claimant suffered fracture of right leg (right tibia). He confirmed the statement that in the month of December the claimant was admitted in the hospital again for removal of screws and underwent minor operation. He stated that there is shortening of right lower limb by 1 inch and because of mal-union there is restriction of knee-joint movement. He assessed the percentage of partial permanent disability at 10-15%. He deposed that it would be difficult for the claimant to attend to the work involving sitting and squatting. 10. From the aforesaid evidence it is clear that the claimant suffered grievous injury to the extent of 10-15 % of partial permanent disability. It is also evident that the claimant was working as agriculture labour. Considering the same it would be reasonable to assess the income at Rs.1500/- per month (Rs.50/- per day) instead of Rs.1200/- per month as assessed by the Tribunal. 11. Although the claimant stated that he was aged 26 years, in the First Information Report his age was noted as 38 years. Taking the same as correct, the correct multiplier to be applied is ‘17’. Calculating the loss of earning capacity by taking into consideration the income of Rs.1500/- per month, disability at 15% and ‘17’ multiplier, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs.45,900/- (1500 x 12 x 17 x 15/100). 12. The Tribunal assessed the loss of earning @ Rs.1200/- per month and awarded Rs.7,200/- towards loss of income for a period of six months. Since the income is now assessed at Rs.1500/- per month, loss of earning is liable to be enhanced at Rs.9,000/-. 13. Thus, it is to be held that the claimant is entitled for enhancement of Rs.45,900/- as against Rs.21,600/- towards loss of earning capacity and Rs.9,000/- as against Rs.7,200/- for the loss of income for a period of six months. Accordingly, the claimant is entitled for a total enhancement of Rs.26,100/- {45,900 – 21,600 = 24300 + 1,800 (9,000 – 7,200) = 26,100}. The claimants are entitled for interest at 6% P.A., on the enhanced amount from the date of petition till date of realization. The amount awarded by the Tribunal on all other accounts need not be interfered. 14. The award in M.V.O.P.No.895 of 1998 dated 17-08-2002 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Guntur, is modified accordingly to the above extent and the appeal is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J July 15, 2010. Pn THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.616 of 2003 July 15, 2010