IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4133 of 2003 Between: Y.V.Koteswara Reddy ..... APPELLANT(S) AND N.Keshava Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4133 of 2003 ORDER: Appellant filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.214 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Court, Kurnool, seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, towards the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident, alleging that on 16.06.2001 at about 08.30 a.m. while he was proceeding from Nandyal to Neravada village on a motor cycle and when reached near Balapanur metta, the driver of the tractor and trailor bearing Nos.AP- 21-U-8383 and 7593, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, drove the vehicle at high speed and in rash and negligent manner and dashed against his motor cycle resulting injuries to him. First respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Second respondent filed counter denying the averments in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor-trailor bearing No.AP-21-U-8383 and AP- 21-U-7593? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to receive compensation and, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.18 were marked. Though no oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor and trailor involved in the accident, awarded Rs.2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the present appeal is by the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the appellant is entitled to and there is no need to enhance the same. Now the point for consideration is to what compensation the appellant is entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,44,000/- towards loss of income due to 30% permanent disability; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.37,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment; and Rs.9,000/- towards loss of amenities and pleasures; making a total of Rs.2,00,000/-. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the appellant sustained a fracture to his right leg and is suffering from 30% permanent disability. The claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.1,00,000/- per annum from out of his agricultural work and also by doing repairs to submersible motors. To prove the said claim the appellant produced Ex.A.14 the Certificate of Registration issued by the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer dated 29.05.1995 which shows that his was the proprietor of M/s.Q.S.S. Electronics and Motor Works, Nandyal, and he also produced Ex.A.16 pattadar pass books to show that he owns agricultural land to an extent of Ac.5-84 cents. The Tribunal has not taken the said evidence in a right perspective and fixed the annual income of the appellant at Rs.30,000/-. In my considered opinion the appellant must be earning not less than Rs.42,000/- per annum and I take the annual income of the appellant at Rs.42,000/- per annum. The Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier ‘16’. So, the loss of income of the appellant comes to Rs.42,000 x 30% x 16 = Rs.2,01,600/-. The Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Considering the evidence of P.W.2, the Doctor, who treated the appellant, I am of the view that the same can be enhanced by Rs.5,000/-. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. I am not inclined to interfere with the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the same shall remain unaltered. So, the appellant is entitled to Rs.2,01,600/- towards loss of income + Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.37,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment + Rs.9,000/- towards loss of amenities and pleasures; making a total of Rs.2,62,600/- which was rounded off to Rs.2,63,000/-. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the rate of interest is reduced from 9% to 6% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part. The award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.2,63,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 12th August 2010 CVRK