IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4665 of 2004 Between: Syed Mahboob ..... APPELLANT(S) AND N.Srinivas Reddy and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.4665 of 2004 ORDER: The appellant herein filed claim petition in O.P.No.1174 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and Rule 455 of the A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, alleging that on 02.11.2000 at about 3.00 p.m., while he and others were travelling in an auto bearing No.AP-13-U-7122 which was being driven on the extreme left side of the road and when they reached near Novapan Factoryat Isnapur, Patancheru, Medak District, one lorry bearing No.APR-1184, owned by the first respondent, and insured with the second respondent, being driven by its driver in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and dashed the auto and due to the said accident he received fracture of right leg, loss of skin over right leg, injuries to iliac region, fracture of left leg, fractures of right ribs, breathing problem and other injuries all over the body. It is stated that immediately after the accident he was taken to CDR Hospitals, Hyderabad, where he took treatment as an inpatient and incurred Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses. The appellant claims that by the time of accident he was 23 years old and was earning Rs.3,000/- per month by working as Helper in Samrin Engineering Woks. The first respondent herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The second respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle resisted the petition by filing a counter denying all the allegations. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the motor accident that took place on 02.11.2000 at about 3 p.m., near Novapan factory, Patancheru, Medak Distric, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.APR 1184? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? On behalf of the appellant, the appellant himself was examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, though no oral evidence was adduced, the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence in driving the offending lorry, awarded Rs.60,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization as compensation to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Aggrieved by the same, 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 by adopting the multiplier on lower side and by taking the age of the appellant on higher side. It is also contended that the appellant requires replacement of artificial leg for every two to three years by operation and the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards that count. In support of the said contention he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of NAGAPPA vs. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1]. 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 so there is no need to enhance the same. He also contended that in the absence of any evidence that the appellant requires replacement of artificial leg every two to three years by operation, no compensation can be awarded under that head. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ‘Just’ and, if so, to what compensation the appellant is entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,164/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation and other incidental charges; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.3,750/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment; and Rs.27,000/- towards loss of future earnings; totaling to Rs.59,914/- but rounded off to Rs.60,000/-. For arriving the compensation payable towards loss of future earnings, the Tribunal considered the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. The appellant as P.W.1 deposed that he was earning Rs.3000/- per month by working as Helper in Samrin Engineering Works. On the ground that no evidence was placed before it, the Tribunal considered the earnings of the appellant to be Rs.1250/- per month. No doubt, no evidence was produced before the Tribunal to show the earnings of the appellant but even according to the minimum wages in the year 2000 a coolie would get Rs.2000/- per month. So, I take the income of the appellant as Rs.2,000/- per month which comes to Rs.24,000/- per annum. P.W.2 the Doctor who treated the appellant assessed the permanent disability at 30%. The Tribunal on an erroneous assumption took the disability of the appellant as 10%. But, it is the Doctor who has to assess the disability. So, I take the disability at 30%. So, the loss of future earnings comes to Rs.7,200/- per annum (Rs.24,000/- X 30%). The Tribunal considered the age of the appellant to be 25 years by the time of the accident and applied the multiplier ‘18’. So, the compensation payable towards loss of future earnings comes to Rs.7,200/- x 18 = Rs.1,29,600/-. So, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,29,600/- towards loss of future earnings + Rs.9,164/- towards medical expenses, extra nourishment, transportation and other incidental charges + Rs.20,000/- towards pain and sufferings + Rs.3,750/- towards loss of earnings during the period of treatment = Rs.1,62,514/-. The learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that since the claim is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- the compensation may be restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. He also contended that the interest awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. In NAGAPPA case (1 supra) it was held that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, there is no restriction that compensation could be awarded only up to the amount claimed by the claimant and that in an appropriate case where from the evidence brought on record if Tribunal/Court considers that claimant is entitled to get more compensation than claimed, it may pass such Award, but the only embargo is that it should be ‘Just’ compensation, that is to say, it should be neither arbitrary, fanciful nor unjustifiable from the evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that he is ready and willing to pay the deficit court fee on the enhanced compensation. However, the interest is reduced from 9% to 7.5% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.1,62,514/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. The appellant is permitted to deposit the deficit Court fee in the Court below. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 17th June 2010 CVRK/KK/TSNR [1] AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 674