HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4889 of 2004 Between Mancholi Narsimha Chary V M.Ravinder and another HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4889 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in O.P.No453 of 2002 in its order dated 3-12-2004 for the injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25-12-2001. The facts in nutshell are that on 25-12-2001 around 7-15 p.m. the claimant and his daughter baby Vani were proceeding on his cycle from Jaipuri Colony to Bharath Nagar Colony, when they reached near Rajiv Gandhi Bus Stage, at that time an auto bearing No. AP 10 U 3616 coming in high speed in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant’s cycle. As a result, the claimant and his daughter fell down, the claimant received fracture injuries to his right clavicle, swelling to right shoulder and injuries on both hands and a fracture on the left ankle besides the multiple injuries all over his body. Immediately the claimant was shifted to Medicare Hospital. The claimant filed the above O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The 1st respondent, the owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent insurance company filed its counter calling upon the petitioner to prove that he sustained injuries as a result of accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle that belongs to the 1st respondent. Basing on the rival contentions, appropriate issues were framed for trial. The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.9. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company marked Ex.B.1 on its behalf. The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence on record granted a sum of Rs.30,135/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. Hence, this appeal by the claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant- claimant contended that the claimant was working as carpenter by profession and used to earn a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month and that due to accident he received injuries to his right clevical and injuries to both hands and fractures to left ankle, and he is unable to do the work, therefore the Tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation under the head of loss of future earnings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 10 U 3616. The Tribunal on evidence also came to the conclusion that the policy is in force as on the date of accident and as such the respondent no.2 is liable to pay the compensation. The claimant was working as Carpenter by the date of accident and therefore his income per month can be taken as Rs.3000/-. The Doctor P.W.2 deposed that the claimant sustained fracture injury of right clavicle and also fracture to the right shoulder. and he certified that the disability sustained by the claimant is 25% and that even after the long period of accident, the claimant is suffering with disability due to the fracture to his right shoulder. The evidence of P.W.2 is to the effect that the percentage of disability sustained by the claimant at 25%. The claimant is aged about 36 years at the time of accident the appropriate multiplier would be 15, thus the claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.3000 x 25% x 12 x 15 = Rs.1,35,000/- towards loss of future earnings. Added to this other amounts granted by the Tribunal towards loss of earnings and towards pain and suffering stands affirmed. However, claim petition itself filed for a total amount of Rs.1,00,000/- the amount of compensation is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Subject to above, the appeal stands allowed. No costs. _______________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 12-11-2010 kk/ HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.4889 of 2004 12-11-2010