THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2913 of 2003 Date:18.11.2010 Between: The State of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its District Collector, Vizianagaram and others ..... Appellants AND N. Jagannadham and another .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellants: Government Pleader for Arbitration Counsel for Respondent No.1: Jayanti S.C. Sekhar Counsel for Respondent No.2: Sri P.V. Seshagiri Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award dated 24.01.2003 in O.P.No.381 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram (for short ‘the Tribunal’). Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the O.P. are the appellants in this C.M.A. Respondent No.1, who sustained injuries in an accident involving the jeep belonging to appellant Nos.2 and 3 on 10.08.1996, filed the O.P. claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. On an analysis of the evidence on record produced by the parties, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.73,000/- comprising Rs.60,000/- towards loss of income, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards expenses of transportation to hospital, medicines and extra nourishment. At the hearing, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Arbitration, submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. Sri Jayanti S.C. Sekhar, the learned counsel for respondent No.1, opposed the above contention and submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just and reasonable, the award is not liable for interference. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties with reference to the material on record. In support of his claim, respondent No.1 has examined himself as P.W.1 and Dr. K.V.Muralimohan as P.W.2. In his evidence, P.W.2, who has issued Ex.A-2 wound certificate, stated that he has examined respondent No.1 on 16.12.2002; that he examined X-ray marked as Ex.A-4 which showed mal united fracture of left fumerous and left colles and that the District Medical Board issued disability certificate (marked as Ex.A-5) assessing the disability at 25% partial and permanent. P.W.2 further deposed that respondent No.1 cannot do hard work. Though respondent No.1 has stated that as a cooli, he was earning Rs.100/- per day, the Tribunal has taken Rs.50/-as his daily income. Having so assessed, the Tribunal has, however, taken Rs.15,000/- per annum as the income instead taking Rs.18,000/-. Be that as it may, in my opinion, the assessment of loss of income at Rs.60,000/- by the Tribunal considering the percentage of disability as certified in Ex.A-5 by the Medical Board and taking the multiplier of ‘16’ considering the age of respondent No.1 as 35 years, cannot be stated to be illegal. Similarly, the award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the pain and suffering for as many as six injuries of which injuries 4 and 5 were found to be grievous in nature also appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,000/- towards expenses for transportation, medicines and extra nourishment. While doing so, the Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that respondent No.1 was inpatient for a period of 18 days from 10.08.1996 to 28.08.1996 in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case with reference to the evidence available on record, I am of the opinion that the award of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. For the aforementioned reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the C.M.A., interim orders dated 18.08.2003 and 22.01.2004 in C.M.A.M.P.No.17564 of 2003 and 1365 of 2004 respectively are vacated and C.M.A.M.P.No.17564 of 2003 and 1365 of 2004 are dismissed as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 18th November, 2010 GHN