HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3021 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.1412 of 2000 dated 11-07-2002 passed by the learned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking enhanced compensation. 2. Claimant is appellant, respondent No.1 is owner of the Tata Sumo bearing No.AP15 – H - 1628 that involved in the accident and respondent No.3 is insurer of the Tata Sumo belonging to respondent No.1. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that on 05-03-2000, while he was proceeding on his scooter from Hyderabad towards Pedda Amberpet, near Pedda Amberpet, at 6-00 PM, Tata Sumo bearing No.AP15 – H - 1628 belonging to respondent No.1 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent driver and at a high speed, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter of the petitioner, as a result, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries including fracture of his right leg. He was shifted to CDR Hospital, where his right leg was amputated up to knee level. He spent substantial amount for treatement. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and respondent No.2, insurer of the offending vehicle, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident that occurred on 4-3-2000 near Pedda Amberpet involving the petitioner Scooterist and Tata Sumo bearing No.AP 15H 1628 was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the said Tata sumo by its Driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ?” 7. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-13. On behalf of the insurance company, no evidence was adduced. 8. Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,32,181/- to the claimant. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal seeking enhanced compensation. 9. As both the respondents i.e., owner of the offending vehicle and its insurer respectively, did not prefer any appeal, there is no dispute about their liability for payment of compensation. 10. Now the only question that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal is inadequate ? 11. The fact of claimant’s right leg being amputated up to knee level is not in dispute. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.61,000/- towards medical expenses on the basis of the bills produced by the claimant, Rs.11,181/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.60,000/- towards pain and suffering and inconvenience suffered by the claimant on account of amputation and discomfort in future. 12. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that claimant is a Government employee working as watchman in R & B Guest House at Pedda Amberpet and on the basis of the percentage of permanent disability suffered by him, he is entitled to the compensation. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in APSRTC, HYDERABAD v. S. DHANANJAYA REDDY[1], wherein, a watchman of the State Bank of Hyderabad drawing a salary of Rs.2,500/- per month suffered accident and the permanent disability suffered by him was shown to be 80%; obviously, as his both legs were fractured unlike in the present case and that might be a case where claimant suffered serious injuries, details of the injuries are not available. However, in the present case, there is no material showing percentage of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant and as per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the permanent disability works out to 50% in a case of this nature. In the decision referred supra, it was held that the claimant cannot do the work with the same vigor as before on account of the injuries suffered and there is no guarantee of his continuing in service, in case he is not able to discharge the duties properly. Such a contingency may not arise in the present case, as the claimant is a permanent Government servant. If multiplier has to be applied for the purpose of computing compensation, multiplier 11 would be appropriate. The monthly salary of the claimant is Rs.4,792/-, which comes to Rs.57,504/- per annum and if the same is capitalized with multiplier 11, it comes to Rs.6,32,544/-. As per the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the permanent disability suffered by the claimant works out to 50%, but when the claimant did not lose his employment and he suffered only loss of amenities in life, the percentage of permanent disability to be taken for the purpose of compensation shall be at 15%. In the circumstances of the case, where claimant did not lose employment and is compensated separately for the loss of amenities in life by awarding Rs.60,000/- by the Tribunal, he would be entitled to another amount of Rs.94,881/-(6,32,544 x 15%), if 15% disability is taken into consideration, which can be rounded off to Rs.95,000/-. 13. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.95,000/- (Rupees ninety five thousand only). Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.2,27,181/-, which include the enhanced compensation of Rs.95,000/-. On the enhanced compensation, claimant is entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. Claimant is entitled to withdraw 50% of the enhanced compensation soon after its deposit and the remaining 50% two years thereafter. 14. With the above directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J October 1, 2010. PV [1] 2001 ALD(6) 790