IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.328 of 2006 Dated:14-09-2011 Between: A.Siva Reddy ….Appellant. And M/S J.R.V.S. Polymers Private Limited and another. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.328 of 2006 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This appeal is filed at the instance of claimant directed against the award passed in O.P.No.608 of 2003 by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad on 23.11.2005. The claimant has filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the Motor Vehicle Accident. According to him, on the intervening night of 15/16.06.2002 at about 12.00 mid night when he was proceeding on the motorcycle bearing No.AP 28AA 1306 as a pillion rider along with his friend Nagaraju and when they reached near RTC Cross roads and stopped at the traffic signal, one Tata goods vehicle bearing No.AP 11V 5951 came in high speed and dashed his vehicle, due to which he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. According to him, he is working as a Lecturer in Chemistry in Guntur Vikas College from May, 2000 and earning Rs.15,000/- per month. He spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- towards his medical expenses. Due to the injuries sustained by him he was attacked with paralysis and unable to work independently, as such he prayed for compensation of Rs.40,00,000/-. The 1st respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, opposed the application by pleading that the petitioner and his friend were in drunken condition and they tried to overtake the vehicle and in their attempt they dashed the goods vehicle and fell down. He denied about the injuries sustained by the petitioner and pleaded that the compensation claimed by him is excessive and exorbitant. The 2nd respondent, insurance company, has also opposed the application by filing counter denying the manner in which the alleged accident has taken place and pleaded that the petitioner and rider of the vehicle were under the influence of alcohol and denied the age and occupation of the deceased and pleaded that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident in question took place on 15/16.06.2002 at about 12.00 A.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata goods vehicle bearing No.AP 11V 5951? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? During the course of enquiry, P.W.Nos.1 to 8 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.29 were marked on behalf of the petitioner. Exs.B.1, Exs.R.1 and R.2 and Ex.X.1 were marked on behalf of the respondents and no oral evidence was adduced. Taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata goods vehicle bearing No.AP 11V 5951 and the petitioner was awarded compensation of Rs.8,69,741/- by taking into consideration of the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month and disability at 50%, awarded Rs.5,40,000/- towards loss of income, and also awarding Rs.1,54,741/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment, Rs.40,000/- towards loss of earnings for 8 months, Rs.25,000/- towards physiotherapy charges and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of prospects of marriage. The appellant’s counsel has pleaded that the appellant was aged about 26 years at the time of accident and he was unmarried. He was working as a Lecturer in Chemistry in Guntur Vikas College and earning Rs.15,000/- per month and in support of it Ex.A.13 salary certificate issued by the Director of Guntur Vikas College was marked, as such the income of the petitioner has to be taken as Rs.15,000/- per month at the time of accident. He further pleaded that due to the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the accident, he became totally disabled and unable to do any job, as such the disability has to be taken as 100%. On the other hand, the insurance company’s counsel has pleaded that the petitioner worked in the said college only for one month prior to the accident and he was only paid Rs.5,000/-. Thus, the lower Court has rightly taken into consideration the income of the deceased at Rs.5,000/- per month and also rightly taken the disability of 50% and awarded the just compensation and the petitioner is not entitled for any enhancement in the compensation. In order to establish the income, the petitioner examined P.W.8, who was working as accountant in Guntur Vikas College. According to him, the petitioner was selected and appointed as lecturer in Chemistry on 12.05.2002 and his salary was fixed at Rs.15,000/- per month, immediately after selection Rs.5,000/- was paid as advance. He attended duties from 15.05.2002 till 15.06.2002, on which date, he met with an accident. He admitted that Ex.A.13 was issued by their director. In the cross-examination on behalf of the insurance company, they got marked Ex.R.1 Xerox copy of the attendance register issued by their office and Ex.R.2 is the certificate issued by the Director on 09.05.2003. He also admitted that Ex.A.13 is correct and it was issued basing on the records. He denied the suggestion that Ex.A.13 is a fabricated document. Ex.A.13 is salary certificate of the deceased, which shows that he was paid salary of Rs.15,000/- per month, whereas Ex.R.2 is also salary certificate marked through P.W.8 in the cross-examination by the insurance company, which shows that the petitioner was paid Rs.12,000/- per month. Both the certificates were issued by the Director of the said college. By marking Ex.R.2, in the cross-examination of P.W.8, by the insurance company it has to be presumed that they are admitting the income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month. The Tribunal has taken the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month for the purpose of calculating the compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Admittedly, the petitioner is a lecturer in Chemistry and taking the monthly income at Rs.5,000/- is too meager. As per Ex.R.2 the petitioner was paid Rs.12,000/- per month and the same has to be taken as monthly income of the petitioner. As per Ex.A.5 disability certificate issued by NIMS hospital, the petitioner has sustained disability of 50% due to post hypoxic encephalopathy. Therefore, the disability of the petitioner can be taken at 50%. Thus, the total loss of income of the deceased comes to Rs.12,000 X 12 = Rs.1,44,000/2= Rs.72,000/-. Admittedly, the petitioner was aged about 26 years as on the date of the accident, the proper multiplier applicable as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” is ‘17’. Thus, the total loss of income of the petitioner comes to (Rs.72,000 X 17) Rs.12,24,000/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs.30,000/- towards loss of amenities in life, the petitioner is aged about 26 years and he is suffered 50% disability as per the disability certificate and in spite of the treatment taken by him, he is unable to attend his normal work, as such he can be awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of amenities in life. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. According to P.W.1, he has to go to the hospital even after his discharge for taking further treatment and he sustained neurological problem in the said accident and for recovery of the same, he might have taken nutritious food subsequent to his treatment. Thus, he can be awarded Rs.50,000/- towards transportation and extra nourishment. The Tribunal awarded loss of earnings for 8 months by taking Rs.5,000/- as monthly income. But in view of fixing the income of the petitioner at Rs.12,000/-, he is entitled for Rs.96,000/- towards loss of earnings for 8 months. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,54,741/- towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- towards physiotherapy and Rs.40,000/- towards loss of prospects of marriage, we do not want to disturb the same. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled for Rs.17,19,741/- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.17,19,741/- from Rs.8,69,741/- with interest at 6% P.A. on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:14-09-2011 Ksp