IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1213 OF 2009 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1746 OF 2006 M.A.C.M.A.No.1213 OF 2009 Between: United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Regional Manager, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Divisional Manager …Appellant A n d V.R.S.V.Prasad Kalidindi and another ..Respondents M.A.C.M.A.No.1746 OF 2006 Between: V.R.S.V.Prasad Kalidindi ..Appellant A n d Smt.Rabia Sultana and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.1213 OF 2009 & M.A.C.M.A.No.1746 OF 2006 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals arise out of the award dated 04- 05-2006 in O.P.No.22 of 2003, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV-Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge), (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the claimant was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,62,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. As the two appeals arise out of the same award, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents in both the appeals. Perused the record. 4. The claimant, who is the first respondent in C.M.A.No.1213 of 2009 and appellant in C.M.A.No.1746 of 2006, filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.8 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 19-04-2002 which resulted in amputation of his right leg below knee. According to the claimant, on that day, he was going on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 28D 5637 towards ECIL crossroads from KPHB colony and that at about 01-30 P.M., a lorry bearing No.AP 13 U 7373 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle resulting in grievous injuries to his legs. The claimant was shifted to Apollo Hospital where his right leg below the knee was amputated. Police Kukatpalli registered a case in Cr.No.242 of 2002 against the driver of the lorry. According to the claimant, he was running a repair workshop for xerox machines for his livelihood and as a result of the amputation of the right leg, he is permanently disabled and thereby lost his earning capacity for ever. 5. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal framed the following issues: I. Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries on 19.4.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 13 U 7373? II. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? III. To what relief? 7. During trial, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Dr.B.Rama Krishna who issued the disability certificate-Ex.A-9 was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer. Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 8. 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 lorry by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total sum of Rs.5,62,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.1213 of 2009. Not satisfied with the award, the claimant preferred an appeal in C.M.A.No.1746 of 2006 seeking enhancement of compensation. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry AP 13 U 7373 by its driver is not seriously challenged. Even otherwise, the evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A- 1, the FIR, Ex.A-2, the complaint, and Ex.A-3, the final report, would go to show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. 10. The only question that arises for consideration is as to the quantum of compensation the claimant is entitled to. 11. Admittedly, the claimant was inpatient in Apollo Hospital from 19-04-2002 to 29-04-2002 in connection with the treatment for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. Ex.A-4-injury certificate shows that the claimant suffered amputation of right leg and also fracture of neck of left fibula and an abrasion on the left medial malleolu. The claimant filed Ex.A-11 bunch of medical bills and prescriptions showing the expenditure incurred in connection with his treatment and based on the same, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical expenses, which is considered just and reasonable. 12. According to the claimant, he was earning his livelihood by running a workshop for repair of xerox machines and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. In support of his plea, he filed Ex.A-5 income tax papers for 2000-2001 assessment year showing income of Rs.42,330/- and Ex.A-6 income tax returns for 2002-2003 showing income of Rs.60,005/-. In view of Exs.A-5 and A- 6, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. As the evidence on record showed that the claimant had undergone treatment for a period of four months, the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- (Rs.5,000/- x 4) towards loss of past income, which is considered just and reasonable. Ex.A-4 injury certificate shows that the claimant sustained two grievous injuries and one simple injury. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled for a total amount of Rs.11,000/- as compensation for pain and suffering (Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.1,000/-) for the above three injuries. 13. It is not disputed that the claimant suffered amputation of right leg below the knee which a partial permanent disability. The claimant examined P.W.2, the doctor who issued Ex.A-9 disability certificate to the effect that the percentage of disability is 60%. The accident occurred in the year 2002 and the certificate Ex.A-9 was issued in 2006. Admittedly, P.W.2 was not the doctor who treated the claimant. The claimant has not examined any doctor from Apollo Hospital who treated him to speak to the nature and extent of the permanent disability resulting from amputation of the right leg below knee. The testimony of P.W.2 or Ex.A-9 certificate issued by him do not disclose the basis on which the percentage of disability was estimated at 60%. The Tribunal while expressing a doubt as to whether the evidence of P.W.2 can be relied upon took the percentage of disability at 20% for which also there is no basis. The impugned award does not disclose any reasons for taking the percentage of disability at 20%. When the medical evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A-9 states that it is 60%, the Tribunal has chosen to ignore the medical evidence of P.W.2 and Ex.A-9 regarding the percentage of disability but, however, did not disclose any basis on which it was estimated at 20%. In the absence of any reasons supporting the said estimation, the same cannot be upheld. It is not in dispute that as per the schedule appended to the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the percentage of disability associated with amputation of one leg below the knee is 50%. It is, therefore, considered just and reasonable to adopt the said estimation prescribed by the statute. Taking the percentage of disability at 50% and applying the same to the income of the claimant, which is taken as Rs.5,000/- per month, the loss of future earnings on account of the permanent disability comes to Rs.2,500/- per month i.e., Rs.30,000/- per annum. It is not disputed that the claimant was aged 22 years by the date of accident. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1], the appropriate multiplier suitable to the age of the claimant is ‘18’ but not ‘16’ as adopted by the Tribunal. Applying the multiplier ‘18’, the compensation towards loss of future earnings on account of 50% permanent disability comes to Rs.5,40,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 18). 14. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for shock and pain. As stated supra, the claimant would be entitled for Rs.11,000/- towards pain and suffering in view of the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1 lakh for amputation of the leg and another sum of Rs.50,000/- for permanent disability. It is considered that the amounts awarded under these heads are overlapping. As observed by the Tribunal, on account of amputation of the right leg below knee, the claimant is permanently disabled and he has necessarily to seek the assistance of someone for his transportation. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for some compensation towards loss of amenities of life and for engaging the services of an attendant in that connection. It is considered that a sum of Rs.50,000/- would be just and reasonable in that regard. The claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment during the period of hospitalization and Rs.4,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the claimant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum on the original amount awarded by the Tribunal from the date of filing of the petition and at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 15. In the result, M.A.C.M.A.No.1213 of 2009 filed by the insurer is dismissed and M.A.C.M.A.No.1746 of 2006 filed by the claimant is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th June, 2011. Lrkm. [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121