IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2305 of 2003 Between: Gadda Juvanna .. Appellant AND Jasbir Singh and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.918 of 1998 dated 6-8-2001 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad. The appellant was travelling in jeep No.AP-25-E-3840 from Armoor towards Pochampad on 20-09-1998 at about 8.30 A.M. Near Bussapoor village, Lorry No.DL-IG-A-2595, driven rashly and negligently at high speed, dashed against the jeep from opposite direction resulting in fractures to skull and right side ribs and head injury and other injuries to the appellant. He was treated at Government Hospital, Armoor, Government Head quarters Hospital, Nizamabad, Pragathi Nursing Home, Nizamabad and by other private doctors. The appellant claimed to have been disabled due to the fractures and injuries in spite of spending Rs.80,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. He claimed that at the age of 35 years, he was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as an agriculturist and that the police registered Crime No.84 of 1998 at Balkonda Police Station. The owner of the lorry-1st respondent and the insurer-the 2nd respondent denied the allegations of the appellant and claimed that the compensation claimed is excessive. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the quantum of compensation and examined PWs.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.17 during the enquiry. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of PW.1-the injured, corroborated by Ex.A.1-FIR and Ex.A.2-Charge Sheet. The Tribunal concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver was the cause for the accident. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of the injured-PW.1 and the Orthopaedic Surgeon- PW.2 about the dislocation of Acromio clavicular joint, fracture of 9th and 10th ribs on the right side and laceration over the skull. The Tribunal referred to the course of treatment and the partial permanent disability of 35% still left even after the treatment. Referring to the Disability Certificate-Ex.A.15, the Tribunal considered it just to award Rs.25,000/- each for fractures/grievous injuries and Rs.3,000/- for simple injury, apart from Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- for medical expenses, conveyance and extra nourishment. The permanent partial disability was compensated by the Tribunal by a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards loss of future earnings and on the total compensation of Rs.93,000/-, the Tribunal awarded interest at 12 % p.a. and proportionate costs. While the respondents did not challenge the award in any manner, the claimant challenged the same in this appeal contending that the compensation should have been awarded as claimed under various heads and interest also should have been awarded at higher percentage and hence, he desired the compensation as claimed to be granted. Sri Kuldeep Jadhav, learned counsel representing Sri P. Radhive Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri R. Venkata Rao, learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent, are heard. None entered appearance for the 1st respondent before this Court. No party challenged the conclusion of the Tribunal about the responsibility of the lorry driver for the accident with his rash and negligent driving and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its valid and subsisting insurance with the 2nd respondent are not in dispute. The joint and several liability of both the respondents to justly and adequately compensate the claimant cannot, therefore, be in dispute and the only question left for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation to which he is entitled. Award of Rs.50,000/- towards grievous injuries and Rs.3,000/- for a simple injury, while also granting Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering cannot be inadequate. Even in the absence of proof of the expenditure, the Tribunal justly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and conveyance and extra nourishment. The only area where the Tribunal appeared to have not extended the benefit of the beneficial provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to the claimant is in the calculation of loss of future earnings. The claimant not only examined himself about the injuries and the treatment undergone claiming to have been not in a position to continue his agricultural activity in his lands, but also examined PW.2-the doctor, who treated him at the first instance at Government Hospital, Nizamabad. While PW.1 denied that he was completely cured due to the treatment, PW.2, who again examined PW.1 on 15-1-2001, certified the claimant to have suffered disability of 35%. That the claimant received severe injuries were specified even in Ex.A.1-FIR and in Ex.A.2, the lorry driver was prosecuted for grievous injuries under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code concerning this claimant. Ex.A.3-Discharge Card speaks about the dislocation of right Aromio clavicular joint, while Ex.A.16-Case Sheet shows his physical condition at the time of admission and the treatment he received. These materials support reasonably the possibility of the claimant suffering significant disability, which was certified to be 35% in Ex.A.15 by PW.2 due to the fracture of right ribs and dislocation of right Aromioclavicular joint, apart from restricted and painful movements of right shoulder. This 35% disability in respect of the injured parts of the body can be reasonably taken as about 25% disability with reference to the whole body and the occupation of the claimant as an agriculturist. If he has completed the age of 35 years at the relevant time, the appropriate multiplier that would have been applied maybe 15/16 as per Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1] and in the absence of any evidence to show the income, even the income presumed to be earned by non-earning persons under the Second Schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 at Rs.15,000/-p.a. can be safely taken as the basis being much less than even the minimum wages payable to unskilled labourers under the Minimum Wages Act. On such income, on application of such multiplier, 25% of loss of future earnings will come to about Rs.56,000/- and if Rs.20,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal were to be given credit to, the claimant will be entitled to another Rs.36,000/-. The Tribunal did not assign any reasons for confining to such a lump sum amount, and therefore, the enhancement will be resulting in giving him just and adequate compensation. The enhanced portion can carry interest at 6% p.a. in view of the length of time for which the interest has to be paid and proportionate costs, of course, shall have to be paid. In the result, the award dated 6-8-2001 in O.P.No.918 of 1998 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.36,000/- with interest thereon at 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs, in addition to the compensation already awarded by the impugned award and the appeal is allowed accordingly in part without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 27-01-2011 Ksn [1] 2009 ACJ 1298