HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1500 of 2005 DATED: 03.03.2011 Between: B. Venkatamma .. Appellant And 1. P. Anasuya 2. M.D. Hisamuddin 3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appellant – claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the order dated 10.03.2005 in O.P.No.2719 of 2001 passed by II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The claimant filed the aforementioned O.P. alleging that on 04.11.2001, at about 7.15 p.m., while she was walking on the extreme left side of the road near Mosque in Habsipura village, Dubbaka Mandal, Medak District, a jeep bearing No. AP 12T 9157 driven by its driver with high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, hit her, due to which, she sustained multiple fractures resulting in amputation of the right leg at knee, fractures to left leg, left ribs and left shoulder besides sustaining injuries on hands, on the back side of the head. Immediately, she was taken to Government Hospital, Siddipet, Medak District, and later referred to the Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad wherein her right leg was amputated, and she is completely bed- ridden and permanently disabled. In this connection, the police registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2001 for the offence under Section 337 IPC and later altered Section of law to 338 IPC. The claimant used to do milk business and earn Rs.4,000/- per month. She spent more than Rs.50,000/- for medical treatment and other expenses. Hence, she filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.3 - New India Assurance Company Limited filed counter denying the manner of accident, age, occupation, income of the claimant and the injuries sustained by her. The disability sustained by the petitioner is not admitted and put to strict proof. The petitioner did not state anything in the claim petition that the owner of the offending vehicle has insured the offending vehicle with this respondent. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the O.P. since the petitioner, the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent were residing in Medak District and the accident took place in Medak District, but in fact, the petitioner was not living in Medak District. The liability of the 3rd respondent arises only when it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid and subsisting driving license at the time of the accident. The claim made by the claimant is excessive. Hence, it is prayed that the petition may be dismissed. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial: 1. Whether the accident in question took place on 04.11.2001 at about 07.15 p.m. due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep bearing No.AP 12T 9157 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? In order to substantiate her case, the claimant got herself examined as PW1 besides examining the doctor, who treated her, as PW2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A7 and Ex.X1. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 was got marked, but no oral evidence is adduced . From a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and granted an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that even though the appellant-claimant used to earn Rs.4,000/- per month as labourer besides doing milk business, at the time of the accident, the Tribunal erred in granting less compensation, and prays to enhance the compensation. The learned Standing Counsel for the New India Assurance Company Limited appearing for the 3rd respondent, has contended that the Tribunal granted just and reasonable compensation, and the impugned order need not be interfered with, and prays to dismiss the appeal. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained permanent disability due to amputation of her right let at knee as is evident from Ex.A5 – disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Gandhi Hospital, according to which, the extent of permanent disability sustained by the claimant is estimated at 50%. It is stated that the claimant was working as a labourer besides being a milk vendor and earning Rs.4,000/- p.m. However, the Tribunal considered the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.1,250/- per month, which appears to be quite low. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if the monthly income of the claimant is fixed at Rs.2,500/-. If the same is taken, then the income of the claimant per annum comes to Rs.2,500/- x 12 = Rs.30,000/-. Inasmuch as the petitioner has sustained permanent disability which is estimated at 50%, his future loss of income is calculated at Rs.15,000/- (Rs.30,000/- x 50 / 100). As there is no consistency with regard to the age of the deceased as mentioned in various documents, the same is taken to be between 40 and 45 years, for which, the appropriate multiplier is “15”. If the same is applied, the amount of compensation is quantified at Rs.2,25,000/- (Rs.15,000/- x 15). In addition thereto, the petitioner is entitled to Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,30,000/-. However, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 6% per annum is enhanced to 7% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till realization. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 10.03.2005, this appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 03.03.2011 bcj