HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2408 OF 2011 AND C.M.A. No.3479 OF 2004 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both these appeals arise out of the award in O.P.No.152 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. A claim for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 2. The averments in the petition go show that on 09.08.2001 when the petitioner was going on TVS Suzuki motorcycle at Godavarikhani the auto bearing No.AP 15 V 3240 came in opposite direction and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and treated in hospital and suffered disability. He claims to have spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is driver, the 2nd respondent is owner and the 3rd respondent is Insurance Company. Both the respondents Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte and the 3rd respondent filed a counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of the rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by him and also the expenditure incurred by him. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record came to the conclusion that the incident was due to the head on collusion between the TVS motorcycle and the auto and fixed 50% of liability each on the drivers of the vehicles and after assessing the compensation at Rs.10,82,000/-, directed the 3rd respondent to pay a sum of Rs.5,41,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the Insurance Company has filed the C.M.A.No.3479 OF 2004, whereas the petitioner being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation filed M.A.C.M.A.No.2408 of 2011. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 4. POINT: The learned counsel for the Insurance Company strongly contended that the Tribunal has considered 100% loss of earning capacity of the petitioner, considered the salary and applied the multiplier ‘16’, which is not proper. According to him, it was not a case where the petitioner, who was the driver of the vehicle, lost his job and consequently, the determination of the disability totally is not proper. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal has not assessed the evidence. It was also submitted by him that subsequently after sometime, the petitioner has been removed from the service. 5. The factum of the petitioner being removed from the service after sometime is not in dispute. Evidently, he was a driver, aged about ‘35’ years and in such circumstances, the determination of the compensation on the basis of loss of earning capacity cannot be denied. The lower Tribunal has also taken into consideration the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and also the nature of the expenditure and came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.50,000/- is to be awarded towards pain and suffering and also has taken into consideration that the treatment was at the RTC hospital only and granted a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards loss of future amenities and also granted loss of future earnings. The Tribunal having assessed the loss of total earning capacity in a right manner granted an incidental compensation. When once the total loss of earning capacity is determined, then it includes all the claims towards the injuries, disability etc. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I feel the award passed by the Tribunal in determining the claim of compensation cannot be said to be erroneous and it is just and reasonable. Therefore, I do not find any merits in both the appeals. However, the Tribunal has granted interest at 9% per annum and taking into consideration the amount of compensation granted and the law prevailing, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the interest is granted at 7.5% per annum. 7. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed in part. The award of the Tribunal below is modified, while confirming the quantum of compensation, the interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum. Each party shall bear their own costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:30.12.2011 INL