IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.880 OF 2002 Between: Loda Satyanarayana ..... Appellant/Petitioner AND Balram Biradar & 3 others ..... Respondents/Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.880 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award in M.O.P.No.658 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 17.05.1999. 2. The factual background for the appeal is that the injured petitioner was the cleaner in the lorry owned by the third respondent with a monthly salary of Rs.3,000/- per month and he also had a driving license and had experience in driving heavy goods vehicles also. The driving license, dated 16.04.1987, granted in his favour, was being renewed from time to time. On 20.11.1995, the injured petitioner was going from Visakhapatnam to Gajuwaka driving the lorry tanker of the third respondent very cautiously on the left side of the road and near Peddapur, the lorry bearing No.AP 11 T 2172, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, came opposite being driven rashly and negligently at a high speed and dashed the lorry driven by the injured petitioner. The entire lorry tanker was damaged in its front portion and the petitioner had his right foot broken apart from sustaining grievous bleeding injuries all over the body including on the forehead, spine and the right foot. The injured petitioner came out of the lorry with great difficulty and the injuries resulted in loss of the whole muscles in the crushed right foot and the injured petitioner was unable to walk or move sustaining 55% permanent partial disability. 3. The psychological trauma also resulted in reduction of the mental faculties of the injured petitioner who, due to shortening of the right leg, is limping and is unable to walk as earlier. The petitioner has to maintain his wife, male child aged 6 years and parents, all of whom were dependent on his income only and hence, he sought for a compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs from the owner and insurer of the offending lorry. The insurer of the lorry driven by the petitioner is also impleaded as the 4th respondent. 4. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte, the insurer of the offending lorry contested the claim contending that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the injured petitioner only and hence, only the respondents 3 and 4 are liable to pay the compensation. In any view, the compensation claimed is excessive. 5. The 3rd and 4th respondents contested the claim contending that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the other lorry for which Crime No.254 of 1995 was registered and hence, the respondents 3 and 4 are not liable to pay the compensation. 6. The Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the responsibility for the accident and entitlement of the petitioner for compensation and during the enquiry, examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and R.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A6, B1 and B2. The Tribunal, while passing the impugned award, firstly concluded that the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent’s driver resulted in the accident and it also concluded that there is a subsisting insurance policy Ex.B2 for the offending lorry due to which the responsibility for payment of just and adequate compensation lies on the respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal also found that in view of the responsibility for the accident being that of the first respondent’s driver, the respondents 3 and 4 are not liable to pay the compensation, though Ex.B1-Insurance Policy was in subsistence in respect of that lorry also. The Tribunal, then noted that the evidence clearly showed that the injured petitioner has driving license to drive the vehicle and in assessing the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal noted that the evidence of P.W.2 disclosed 55% permanent partial disability, which permanent disability in the right lower limb was assessed to cause a permanent disability at 20% with reference to the whole body and in this regard, the Tribunal relied on the decision reported in 1997 (1) A.L.T. 658. Consequently, the Tribunal assessed the petitioner to be entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards fracture and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and awarded interest at 12% per annum and 15% per annum respectively on the said compensation of Rs.30,000/- along with proportionate costs. 7. The injured petitioner challenged the said award in this appeal contending that when the permanent disability was 55%, the Tribunal could not have assessed it only at 20% and the entire claim of Rs.2,50,000/- ought to have been granted on the facts probablised before the Tribunal. 8. Heard Sri P. Chaitanya, learned counsel representing Sri P. Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam, learned standing counsel for the second respondent. 9. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident being that of the driver of the first respondent’s lorry is not challenged by any of the parties to the claim petition and the said conclusion has become final. The subsisting insurance policy for the lorry of the first respondent issued by the second respondent by the time of the accident is not in dispute and therefore, the joint and several liability of the respondents 1 and 2 to justly and adequately compensate the injured petitioner cannot be in doubt. 10. Therefore, the only question that remains for consideration in this appeal is the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled. 11. The factual conclusions about the injuries and their consequences are not seriously in dispute and the evidence of P.W.2 accepted by the Tribunal to be showing 55% permanent disability in the right lower limb can be straight away acted upon. The computation of the permanent disability at 20% with reference to the whole body on the strength of a binding precedent from this Court also cannot be in question and the compensation to which the injured petitioner is entitled in accordance with law has to be calculated on the basis of such 20% disability left forever for the 29 year old petitioner, who was a cleaner by profession, but was driving the vehicle at the relevant time having the necessary driving license for the purpose. As he did not contribute in any manner, according to the findings of the Tribunal, to the accident, he is entitled to be reasonably compensated and for that purpose, the minimum wages payable to the cleaners at the relevant time under the Minimum Wages Act ought to be taken as the basis. It is stated that such Minimum Wages at the relevant time were about Rs.1,800/- per month. If so, his annual income would have been Rs.21,600/- and 20% of the same would come to Rs.4,320/-. The appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the injured petitioner would be 17 as per SARLA VERMA & OTHERS VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1]. If so, the amount which the petitioner would have been entitled towards loss of future earnings would have been Rs.73,440/- which could be rounded off to Rs.74,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering which need not be disturbed and the Tribunal did not award any other compensation towards other heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages including the medical expenses, attendant’s charges, damage to clothing, extra nourishment, loss of income during the period of hospitalization, etc., and the compensation awardable under all these heads can be rounded off to Rs.10,000/-. The Grant of Rs.90,000/- would have been granting just and adequate compensation to the injured petitioner and obviously and patently, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is too low. On the enhanced portion of the compensation, interest can be awarded at 6% per annum keeping in view the distance of time for which the insurer has to pay such interest to the petitioner. Proportionate costs, of course, should follow suit. 12. Accordingly, the award in M.O.P.No.658 of 1996, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, dated 17.05.1999, is modified by granting a further compensation of Rs.60,000/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs in addition to the compensation already awarded by the Tribunal in the impugned award and the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed, accordingly, in part without costs. No directions need be given at this distance of time concerning the distribution of the compensation. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J September 03, 2010 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.880 OF 2002 September 03, 2010. KL [1] (2009) 6 AIR SCC 99