HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A. No. 493 of 2003 DATED: 04.02.2011 Between: Kasala Narsaiah ..Appellant Vs. 1. U.Balaraju 2. New India Assurance Company Limited ………..Respondents JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed assailing the orders dated 27.11.2001 passed in O.P. No. 78 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the claim petition of the appellant/claimant was partly allowed, granting a total compensation of Rs.60,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum, against his claim of Rs.2,00,000/- under all heads. The facts of the case in brief are that on 01.06.1998, at about 08.00 P.M., the appellant was travelling by a Trailor bearing No.AP25 T 3844 which was attached to the Tractor bearing No. AP25T 1168 from Nizamabad towards Mallaram side, and when the Tractor reached the outskirts of Mallaram village, the driver of the Tractor drove the vehicle at high speed, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a Service Bus bearing No. TML 6736 which was coming from opposite direction, as a result, the appellant sustained fracture injuries to both bones of right leg, and also received injuries on head, left leg and other parts of the body. Later, his right leg was operated and the appellant spent huge amounts for his treatment. Hence, the claimant filed O.P. No. 78 of 1999 seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The 1st respondent, owner of the Tractor filed written statement denying the averments of the petition as to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and injuries sustained by the appellant. He further contends that as the insurance policy was in force at the time of the accident, the 2nd respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company has filed written statement denying all the averments of the petition and contended that it is not liable to pay any compensation. To substantiate the claim of the appellant, he got examined himself as PW1 besides examining PW2 – Dr. C.Srinivasa and got marked Exs.A1 to A10. RW1 was examined and got marked Exs.B1 to B4 on behalf of the respondents and the Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 – F.I.R. and Ex.A2 – charge sheet, held that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and granted compensation as stated supra fastening joint and several liability on the respondents in view of Ex.B1-policy, which was in force by the time of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.50,000/- towards disability without adopting multiplier method and the appellant-injured-claimant was aged 38 years as per Ex.A10 – disability certificate and he had suffered 20% disability. It is further contended that the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards attendant and transportation charges, loss of earnings for 45 days though the appellant was treated in the hospital for the said period and also towards future loss of earnings though he suffered fracture of his right leg and was unable to go for work for a considerable period of time. On the contrary, it is canvassed on behalf of the respondent- insurance company that as per the evidence of PW2 – medical witness, the appellant had suffered fracture on right side of fibula with contusion in the knee joint and suffered 20% disability on account of that injury. It is further canvassed that the Tribunal has rightly fixed the monthly income of the appellant as Rs.3000/- though he was doing labour work. Further, taking into consideration the nature of injuries as stated by PW2 – medical witness coupled with Ex.A10 – disability certificate, it has rightly awarded a total compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards disability, Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses making a total compensation of Rs.60,000/-, as such, it is contended that the Tribunal, after considering the evidence and other material available on record, has rightly awarded the compensation and the same is just and reasonable and does not warrant interference. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent-Oriental Insurance Company Limited and perused the material placed on record. From a careful analysis of the evidence on record, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to award Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs.5000/- towards transportation charges, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of earnings for 45 days and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of future earnings. Inasmuch as the compensation awarded towards disability, pain and suffering and medical expenses appears to be on the lower side, this Court is inclined to enhance Rs.20,000/- towards disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Hence, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal + Rs.60,000/- enhanced by this Court). However, the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 9% p.a. is hereby reduced to 7.5% on the enhanced compensation in view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court and other decisions in this regard. With the above modification of the impugned order dated 27.11.2001, this appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J 04-02-2011 bcj