IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3495 of 2003 Between: The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. .. Appellant AND Konireddy Ankalamma & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3495 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in M.V.O.P.No.143 of 2002, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District Judge, Kadapa, at Proddatur, dated 02.11.2002. 2. The first respondent herein was going to her house along with her cattle on 15.09.2001 at 4.45 p.m. when lorry No. AP 03V 4399, owned by the second respondent herein and insured with the appellant herein, came in high speed being driven rashly and negligently and dashed the first respondent herein going on the extreme left side of the road. The front right tyre of the lorry climbed on the waist of the first respondent herein and she sustained fractures of both the pubic bones apart from fracture of left fore arm and grievous injuries on the left ear, left finger, right thigh and left thigh. She was treated at Government General Hospital, Proddatur, and then at Government General Hospital at Kurnool. Kalamalla Police registered a crime and the first respondent herein was treated as inpatient for 45 days and the first respondent became a permanent physically disabled woman due to paralysis of the lower limbs and fracture of the bones of the left fore arm. She had to permanently depend upon two attendants and lost her source of livelihood. Hence, she sought for a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. She was aged 39 years and had become a destitute. 3. While the owner of the lorry did not contest the claim, the insurer contended that the first respondent herein ran along with her cattle across the road and dashed against the lorry coming in normal speed and hence, there was no negligence on the part of the lorry driver. The insurer also claimed the injuries to be simple which were healed and the insurer denied the liability to pay any compensation denying the claims of the first respondent herein and contending that the lorry driver also had no valid driving licence. 4. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 during the enquiry. 5. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured, P.W.1, corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report and Ex.A-3-Charge Sheet about the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver being the cause for the accident. The Tribunal noticed the age of the injured to be 39 years at that time and while noting the pleadings and evidence about the injuries and their consequences, the Tribunal considered her daily income as Rs.80/- from coolie work and milk business and on the annual income so assessed, with reference to 40% disability proved by medical evidence, the Tribunal assessed the loss of future income at Rs.1,72,800/-. The Tribunal also considered awarding medical expenses at Rs.10,000/- and damages for pain and suffering at Rs.20,000/-. The total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (on rounding off the compensation) was directed to carry interest at 9% per annum and proportionate costs. 6. The insurer, challenging the award in this appeal contended that the application of the multiplier 15 for the age of 39 years was incorrect and the grant of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and assessment of the daily income at Rs.80/- were incorrect. The insurer also claimed that the doctor who gave the disability certificate was not the doctor who treated P.W.1 and hence, the insurer desired the award to be reversed. 7. Heard Smt. Aruna Yalagiri, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Bhaskara Reddy, learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant. None appeared for the owner of the vehicle before this Court. 8. The point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is susceptible for interference? 9. A perusal of the original record received from the Tribunal does not show that the insurer made any application under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or that the Tribunal granted any appropriate order under the said provision to the insurer. In the absence of the necessary permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it is well settled that it is not open to the insurer to challenge the quantum of compensation by way of an appeal. 10. While the appeal is untenable on that technical ground, even otherwise, the responsibility of the driver of the offending vehicle for the accident and its consequences with his rash and negligent driving as found by the Tribunal was not questioned nor was the ownership of the vehicle with the first respondent to the claim or the subsisting valid insurance with the second respondent to the claim is in dispute. 11. While the joint and several liability of both the respondents to the claim to justly and adequately compensate the claim cannot, therefore, be in dispute, in so far as the multiplier is concerned, for a person aged 39 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable as per SARLA VERMA AND OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is 15 in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and what the Tribunal applied was only a multiplier of 15. The consequences of the injuries were claimed by P.W.1 and probablised by the medical evidence to have disabled both the lower limbs of the victim from their normal functioning and 40% disability was stated to be due to malunited fractures and the consequential pain and stiffness disabling P.W.1 even from sitting properly. For her avocation either as a labourer or as a person maintaining cattle, the disability was in fact such as would practically disable her from carrying on the earlier avocations, though the Tribunal assessed the disability only at 40% as certified by the doctor. The assessment of the daily income of the injured from two occupations also cannot be considered to have been excessive even in the background of the minimum wages payable under the Minimum Wages Act at the relevant time and the prolonged treatment and surgeries, etc., cannot be considered over compensated by the grant of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. The quantum of compensation does not appear to be unjust or high and consequently, the appeal has to fail. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 2nd February, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3495 of 2003 Date: 2nd February, 2011 KL [1] 2009 ACJ 1298