IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3998 OF 2003 Between : N.Sujatha .... APPELLANT A N D P.Pullaiah and another …RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3998 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, ‘the Act’) is directed against the Award and decree, dated 31.08.2000 in M.V.O.P.No.572 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. 2. The appellant herein is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the M.V.O.P.No.572 of 1999. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The petitioner filed M.V.O.P.No.572 of 1999 claiming compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident that took place on 09.01.1997. The Tribunal after evaluating the evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- under all heads. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent opposed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal had rightly granted compensation while taking into consideration the income of the injured and the said order needs no interference. 5. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of compensation? 6. As seen from the record, on 09.01.1997 at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner was standing at Yachavaram bus stop, the offending jeep bearing registration No.AP-03-8024 came at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the petitioner, due to which, she fell down and sustained multiple injuries. 7. In proof of injuries, the petitioner herself was examined as P.W.1 and also examined Dr.P.Narayanamurthy, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of First Information Report; Ex.A.2 is the certified copy of wound certificate; Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of charge sheet; Ex.A.4 is the prescriptions; Ex.A.5 is bunch of medical bills; EX.A.6 is the disability certificate; ExA.7 is the X-Ray report and Ex.A.8 is X-ray. 8. According to the petitioner, she sustained fracture to her left leg and also to left wrist. Immediately after the accident, she was shifted to SVRR GG Hospital, Tirupati, where she was treated as an inpatient for six months. As the Surgery conducted on her left leg has not healed, she was again operated by conducting skin grafting and her left leg was shortened by ½ inch. Due to fractures, she was unable to walk properly. Prior to the accident, she used to look after the cattle and doing milk business, but due to the injuries, she sustained permanent disability. She is the only earning member in the family. The Doctor, who treated the injured, issued Ex.A.2 wound certificate, which reads as follows: “ExA.2 is the wound certificate which shows the following injuries sustained by the petitioner. 1) Ex.A.2 Laceration 10 x 5 x 5 cm on lower 1/3rd of left leg fracture bone, 2)Laceration 6 x 3 x 3 cm on the middle of the left fore arm bone deep. X-ray left leg shows committed fracture The X-ray left fore arm showed no bony injury. Ex.A.8 is the report of the Radiologist with X-Rays, which was taken on 10.07.2000 an it reveals that there is mal-union with outer angular and arthritis of left ankle. Therefore, it is clear that the fracture of both bones of left middle 1/3rd resulted in mal union and resulted in traumatic arthritis Dr P.Narayana Murthy P.W.2 after examining P.W.1 and X-rays assessed the disability at 30%.” 9. As the petitioner did not adduce any evidence regarding her earnings, the Tribunal has taken the income of the petitioner at Rs.40/- per day. However, while taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and her avocation, it is just and reasonable to fix the income of the petitioner at Rs.50/- per day, instead of Rs.40/- per day. Accordingly, her income is estimated at Rs.1500/- per month. Admittedly, the petitioner was hospitalized for six months. Therefore, she was deprived of the income during that period and loss of earnings during the period comes to Rs.1500 x 6 = Rs.9000/-. The Tribunal awarded compensation while estimating the disability at 30%. If it is taken into consideration, the loss of earnings comes to Rs.5,400/- per annum (Rs.1500 x 30/100 x 12). After applying the relevant multiplier ‘15’ for the age group of 30, the loss of earnings of the petitioner comes to Rs.5,400 x 15 = Rs. 81,000/-. Apart from the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.1000/- towards transportation charges; Rs.4000/- towards extra nourishment; Rs.3000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.15,000/- towards continuing permanent disability. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled a sum of Rs.1,38,000/-. 10. The Tribunal awarded interest @ 12% per annum which is highly excessive. Therefore, the same is reduced to 7.5% per annum. 11. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.1,20,000/- to Rs.1,38,000/- which shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J MARCH 28, 2011. YVL