IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.886 of 2006 Between: Bathina Nagulaiah @ Nagaiah … Appellant And: V.R.Prasada Reddy & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY MA CMA No.886 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.11.2005 in OP No.391 of 2003 on the ﬁle of the MACT cum III Additional District Judge (FTC), Kadapa, wherein, the said claim application ﬁled by the appellant herein under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs.55,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The appellant ﬁled claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 13.01.2003. According to the claimant on that day, he was returning to Kadapa in a jeep bearing No.AP 04 U 385 belonging to the ﬁrst respondent and at about 8.15 a.m., due to rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, who tried to over take a lorry and RTC bus, dashed against RTC bus, resulting in multiple fractures and injuries to the claimant. It is further pleaded that he was aged 30 years and was working as coolie cum goods rickshaw puller and earning Rs.4,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per month and on account of the injuries, he is not in a position to do any work and that he sustained permanent disability. 4. The ﬁrst respondent-owner of the jeep remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurer ﬁled counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.X.1 was marked on behalf of the claimant. RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked on behalf of the respondents. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.55,000/-. Accordingly, award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Not satisﬁed with the said award, the present appeal is ﬁled by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant is that the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards permanent disability, which is estimated at 35% by PW.2-doctor, who issued Ex.A.6 disability certificate. 7. The evidence on record shows that the claimant suﬀered multiple fractures and injuries which resulted in permanent disability. The claimant examined PW.2-doctor, who issued disability certiﬁcate Ex.A.6 estimating partial permanent disability of 35%. PW.2 testiﬁed as to the following aspects that contributed to partial permanent disability. 1. Mal-united fracture of distal end of left radius; 2. Mal-united fracture of scapula right; 3. Osteoporosis of the surrounding bones of right shoulder; 4. Healed fracture of left ramous of mandible with malocclusion; 5. Healed scar present on the left side of the tip of the tongue; 6. Painful and restricted movements of right shoulder; 7. Painful and restricted movements of left wrist; 8. Painful movements of left tempero mandibular joint during metrication and yawning. The Tribunal ignored the same on the ground that the claimant has not produced any certiﬁcate issued by the Medical Board. It is to be noted that PW.2 was a competent Orthopedic Surgeon and after examining the claimant, he issued disability certiﬁcate Ex.A.6 estimating the disability at 35%. The contents of Ex.A.6 have been duly proved by the testimony of PW.2, who is the author of Ex.A.6. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal ought not to have rejected Ex.A.6 certiﬁcate, simply because, it was not issued by the Medical Board. 8. According to the claimant, he was a coolie cum rickshaw puller. The Tribunal has rightly taken the wages of the claimant at Rs.3000/- per month or Rs.36,000/- per annum. The Tribunal awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earnings and partial permanent disability, without however estimating the loss of earning capacity by applying the multiplier method. The claimant is aged 30 years by the date of the accident. As per the recent decision of the apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case [(2009)6 SCC 121], the appropriate multiplier for the person aged 30 years is ‘16’. Applying the same, the loss of earning capacity on account of the permanent disability works out to Rs.2,01,600/- (Rs.36,000/- x 16 (multiplier) x 35% disability). The amount of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings and partial disability would therefore be superﬂuous and cannot be taken into account. The Tribunal awarded Rs.3220/- towards medical expenses as borne-out by Ex.A.3, Rs.15,000/- towards medicines and extra- nourishment and another sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suﬀering. The claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses as supported by Exs.A.3 and A.4; Rs.11,000/- towards pain and suﬀering i.e., Rs.5000/- for two grievous injuries and Rs.1,000/- for one simple injury, Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,25,600/-, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed accordingly to the extent stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 15.11.2011 bss