IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.474 OF 2008 Between:- The United India Insurance Company Ltd., Parvathipuram, Rep. by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kadapa. …Appellant A n d Palla Sankaraiah and two others …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.474 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 24-09-2007 in O.P.No.60 of 2005, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Kadapa, wherein the said claim petition filed by the first respondent herein, was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.4,12,800/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the records. 3. The first respondent herein filed claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13-12-2004. According to him, on that day, when he was standing under a neem tree at Siva Bhakthendra Swamy Temple, an RTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9043 came from Khajipet side and meanwhile a lorry bearing No.ATQ 9099 belonging to the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant came from opposite direction, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and hit on the right side of the RTC bus and went ahead and hit the neem tree where the petitioner was standing and caused the accident, resulting in crush injury to the left hand of the claimant. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Kadapa where his left hand was amputated up to the upper arm. A case in Cr.No.139 of 2004 was registered against the driver of the lorry by Khazipet Police. The claimant pleaded that he became physically disabled due to the accident. The claimant further pleaded that he was a weaver earning Rs.6,000/- per month and as a result of the accident, he became totally disabled. 4. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter denying their liability to pay the compensation. The RTC also filed a counter stating that the bus was not involved in the accident. 5. The tribunal framed the following issues for trial: (i) Whether the accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing No.ATQ 9099 belonging to R-1 and APSRTC bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 9043 belonging to R-3 by their drivers? (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (iii) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.J.Nagesh was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents before the tribunal. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held on issue No.1 that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.4,12,800/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer filed the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant- insurer would contend that even as per the averment in the claim application, the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the drivers of the lorry and also the bus. But, however, the tribunal erred in fastening liability on the driver of the lorry alone exonerating the driver of the bus. He would, therefore, contend that the compensation payable ought to have been apportioned among the insurance company and the RTC. He would further contend that the tribunal erred in applying the higher multiplier of ‘18’, though the said multiplier as per the decision in SARLA VERMA & OTHERS V. DEHLI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘17’ for the age of the claimant. 9. The learned counsel for the first respondent claimant, on the other hand, would contend that the evidence on record was clear that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and there was no contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and so the tribunal had rightly awarded the entire compensation against the owner of the lorry and the insurer. 10. What all the claimant had stated in the claim application is that the lorry dashed against the bus which is coming in the opposite direction and further went ahead and dashed against the neem tree resulting in injuries to the claimant, who was standing under the neem tree. The claimant has nowhere admitted that the accident was caused because of collision between the two vehicles or that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally responsible. The police, after due investigation, filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry only in Cr.No.139 of 2004 of Khajipet Police Station. The evidence on record clearly established that the driver of the lorry drove the said vehicle in such a rash and negligent manner that even after hitting the bus, which is coming in the opposite direction, it did not come to a halt, but went further and dashed against a road side neem tree and the claimant, who was standing under the neem tree was caught in between the lorry and the tree and suffered serious injuries, which resulted in amputation of left hand up to upper arm. On a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, the tribunal had rightly held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. There are absolutely no grounds to interfere with the said finding and no case is made out for apportionment of any part of the liability and fasten the same on the RTC. 11. Regarding the quantum of compensation, there is not much of a dispute except the multiplier required to be applied. The medical evidence on record established that the claimant sustained crush injury on the left hand and he was admitted as inpatient in Government Hospital, Kadapa for 10 days during which period, his left hand was amputated. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A-2-wound certificate and Ex.A-4-disability certificate issued by the medical board showed that the left arm was amputated and permanent disability was assessed at 60%. According to the claimant, he was working as weaver, earning Rs.6,000/- per month and produced Ex.A-5 certificate to show the same. The tribunal had reasonably taken the income of the claimant at Rs.3,000/- per month from his occupation and estimated the loss of earning capacity at Rs.6,48,000/- by applying the multiplier ‘18’ and the compensation payable on account of 60% disability at Rs.3,88,000/-. 12. It is not disputed that claimant was aged 28 years. The appropriate multiplier as per the recent decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma’s case (supra) for the age of the claimant is ‘17’. Applying the same, the loss of earning capacity on account of 60% disability comes to Rs.3,67,200/- (Rs.3000/- x12x17x60%). The tribunal had awarded Rs.9,000/- towards loss of past income, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, which are all considered to be reasonable, having regard to the nature of the injury sustained by the claimant and the period of hospitalization and the treatment taken by him and the resultant permanent disability on account of the amputation. 13. Under these circumstances, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.3,91,200/- at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The impugned award dated 24-09-2007 is modified accordingly. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th June, 2010. Lrkm. [1] 2009(3) ALD 83 (SC)