THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3688 of 2002 ORDER Aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2002 in M.V.O.P.No. 196 of 2000 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Addl. District Judge, Chittoor at Tirupati. The present C.M.A. is filed on the following grounds: The Order of the tribunal in awarding the compensation amount of Rs. 2,96,400/- against the claim of Rs. 5,00,000/- is erroneous and contrary to law. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: That on 21.3.2000 at about 8-30 p.m. while the injured proceeding on his Yamaha motor cycle bearing No. AP 03 F 5522 from Tirupati to Peruru on Tirupati-Chandragiri main road, while crossing Sri Padmavathi Women’s College turning, driver of the lorry bearing No. AP 16 W 3078 drove the lorry in opposite direction in a high speed and suddenly took a turn towards SPW College and hit the motorcycle of the injured causing him grievous injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the lower Court erroneously taken the multiplier 12 instead of 16 for the age of the injured and that the lower Court also failed to see that the earnings of the injured is more than Rs. 2,000/- per month and urged for enhancement of compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for Insurance Company fairly concedes that the multiplier to be applied in the present case is 16 and accordingly, compensation to be granted on that multiplier 16. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the lower Court is sustainable? A perusal of the judgment of the lower Court, the accident was not disputed and the lower Court correctly found that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending lorry in question. Appellant was examined as P.W-1 before the lower Court and examined P.W-2 Dr. D.B. Sasidhar Reddy. According to him, he suffered fracture of thigh bone, fracture of left ankle, fracture of left little finger and to eye, for which he has taken treatment in S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati and later on in Apollo Hospital, Madras and he is suffering from permanent disability in his lower limbs and he got marked Exs.A-5 to A-14, A-18 to A-21 through P.W.2 Doctor. Exs.A-5 and A-6 are discharge summary subsequent to the initial treatment at S.V.R.R.G.G. Hospital, Tirupati. As per Exs.A-2, A5 and A-6, the petitioner sustained fracture of both femurs, fracture of upper end of left fibula, fracture of upper end of left 5th metacarpal bone and fracture of medical malleolous of left ankle, dislocation of 5th motacarpo phalongel joint of left hand little finger. He suffered facial laceration and left eye injury. It also reads that on 24.3.2000 both thighs were operated and I.M. Nailing with proximal and distal locking was done. Ex.A-6 shows that the petitioner underwent elevation and reposition of left orbital and suturing to facial wounds and SSG to left upper eye lid. These Exs.A-5 and A-6 are the crucial and relevant documents which plays a vital role in deciding the gravity of the injuries sustained by the injured. One can say without hesitation those injuries are grievous in nature and needs constant treatment muchless specialist treatment. According to P.W-2, he admitted disability of the injured at 30% under Ex.A-9. The learned District Judge discussed the evidentiary value of P.Ws.2 and 3 at 13 para of the judgment wherein he categorically opined that non-examination of Dr. S.P. Suresh, Orthopedic Surgeon, who conducted operation is not fatal, as he went abroad. The findings of the lower Court about the disability of the appellant in his lower libs, I am of the view is with good appreciation. It is also found that the injury sustained by P.W-1 are grievous in nature and any amount granted cannot compensate the suffering of the injury. An amount of Rs. 15,000/- was granted by the lower Court towards the future expenditure for removal of implants. A perusal of the documentary evidence and Ex.A-14 certificate issued by Apollo Hospitals, the injured has to incur a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- for removal of implants and for bore grafting. Ex.A-8 shows that the implants are there still in the body of the injured and necessarily they have to be removed and for which the injured should undergo for operation. If that be the medical evidence, necessarily, the petitioner has to undergo operation without 2nd thought for which a reasonable expenditure is to be incurred. Therefore, granting of Rs. 50,000/- instead of Rs. 15,000/- granted by the lower Court in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand is just and reasonable. It is agreed by both the counsels for the appellant and respondents that the appellant-injured is suffering from 30% disability. It is also fairly conceded by the respondents counsel that multiplier applicable in the present case is 16 instead of 12 applied by the lower Court. Admittedly, injured belongs to a agricultural middle class family and is doing bricks business. The lower Court assessed the monthly income of the injured as Rs. 2,000/-. In the set of the circumstances and while taking into consideration the back ground of the injured, his monthly income is assessed at Rs. 2,500/- per month and the annual income is Rs. 30,000/- (Rs.2,500/- x 12). Regarding the selection of multiplier as stated supra that the respondents counsel has fairly conceded that the multiplier 16 is applicable. The petitioner’s age is mentioned as 35 years, but no documentary proof is filed. By appearance he is more than the said age. So a multiplier of 16 is accepted. By multiplying the annual income with the multiplier the total earnings of the petitioner comes to Rs. 4,80,000/- (Rs. 30,000/- x 16). The disability being 30% the said amount is reduced to the extent of disability which comes to Rs.1,44,000/- (Rs.4,80,000/- x 30/100) and the same is awarded as compensation under this head. So total compensation payable to the petitioner under different heads detailed as follows: Compensation for: Rs. a) Pain and suffering 15,000-00 b) Loss of amenities 5,000-00 c) Medical expenses 1,57,000-00 d) Extra nourishment 2,000-00 e) Attendant charges 2,000-00 f) Transport expenses 14,000-00 g) Future medical expenses 50,000-00 h) Loss of earnings 1,44,000-00 -------------------------- Total 3,89,000-00 -------------------------- So the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 3,89,000-00 with interest @ 6% p.a. on the enhanced compensation. With this modification, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. ___________________ 11.2.2011 CHV