THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2877 OF 1999 DATED: 16-11-2009 Between: Mohammad Basha. ..... APPELLANT And Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Transport House, K.H.Road, Bangalore. .....RESPONDENT JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 03-06-1999, in O.P.No.405 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, wherein the claim of the appellant herein was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.74,965/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injury sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 15-10-1994. According to him, on that day, the bus bearing No.KA 34 F 157 belonging to Bellary Depot, coming from Tirupati and driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed against the petitioner who was standing by the side of the road near Punugupalle and that he sustained injuries and was shifted to S.V.R.R. hospital, Tirupati where his right foot was amputated and was discharged on 01-12-1994. The claimant is stated to be a minor aged 5 years by the date of the accident. 4. Respondent filed a counter opposing the claim and denying the liability to pay compensation. 5. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent. 6. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.74,965/- with interest @ 12% p.a. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant preferred the present appeal. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver is not challenged. The only question for consideration in this appeal is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation and if so, to what extent. 8. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1965/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.70,000/- for amputation, totalling Rs.86,965/-, and after deducting the amount of Rs.12,000/- granted under ‘no fault liability’, award was passed for the balance amount of Rs.74,965/-. 9. The evidence on record would show that the claimant sustained multiple injuries and he was in-patient in the S.V.R.R. hospital, Tirupati from 15-10-1994 to 01-12-1994 i.e., for about 1½ months and during the said period, the right foot of the claimant was also amputated. 10. Having regard to the gravity of the injuries sustained by him, which has admittedly led to amputation of the right foot and also in view of the fact that Ex.A4-disability certificate issued by the Medical Officer shows that the claimant sustained disability of 50%, it is considered that the amount awarded by the Tribunal does not reflect just compensation. As the claimant was inpatient of the hospital for about 1½ months he himself necessarily incurred considered expenditure in undergoing treatment. Though he filed bunch of twenty six medical bills-Ex.A5, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs.1965/- observing that all the bills are not regular medical receipts. Having regard to the nature of the injury sustained and the length of treatment undergone, which includes amputation of the right foot, it is considered just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5000/- more towards medical expenses and also a sum of Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment as the claimant was aged 5 years by the date of the accident. 11. The Tribunal has awarded lumpsum amount of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for amputation, without estimating the loss of earning capacity, on the ground that the claimant was minor and was not having any earning capacity. 12. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), in the case of a person aged ‘5’ years, the suitable multiplier would be ‘15’. The notional income of a non- earning member can be taken at Rs.15,000/- p.a. The accident occurred on 15-10-1994 but the amendment of the Act came into force subsequently i.e., from 14-11-1994. Having regard to the fact that the accident occurred admittedly a month before the coming into force of the II Schedule of the Act, it is considered that the multiplier indicated in the II Schedule of the Act can be taken as guide and multiplier ‘14’ would be appropriate for the age of the claimant. 13. In the circumstances, taking the notional income at Rs.15,000/- p.a. and applying the multiplier of ‘14’ the loss of earning capacity can be estimated to Rs.2,10,000/- and 50% comes to Rs.1,05,000/-. Thus, the claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- ( Rs.1,05,000/- + Rs.5000/- + Rs.5000/-). 14. In the circumstances, the impugned award is modified to the extent stated above awarding total compensation of Rs.1,15,000/- with interest on the enhanced amount @ 9% p.a. from the date of the appeal. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th November, 2009 Tsy