THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.718 of 2003 Date : 12 -08-2010 Between : Nayakeeni Srinivas .. Appellant And APSRTC, Rep. by its Depot Manager, Shadnagar Depot. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.718 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation pursuant to the award passed in O.P.No.625 of 2000, dated 5.11.2002 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, R.R.District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad. According to the case of the claimant, on 23.3.2000 he was proceeding in the bus bearing registration No.AP 10Z 4834 of the respondent herein from Shadnagar to Hyderabad. The vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit a lorry bearing registration No.AP 5136 from behind due to which, the claimant sustained fracture of his left hand. As such he filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent filed counter and denied the allegations and contended that the amount claimed was excessive. The Tribunal formulated the issues; whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus of the respondent; and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation, and if so, to what amount. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and the doctor Subhash Rao was examined as P.W.2. Ex.A.1 (C.C. of F.I.R.); Ex.A.2 (C.C. of charge sheet); Ex.A.3 (discharge certificate); Ex.A.4 (discharge card); Ex.A.5 (bus ticket); Ex.A.6 (prescriptions); Ex.A.7 (medical bills); Ex.A.8 (photo with negative); and Ex.A.9 (X-ray with report) were marked on behalf of the claimant. The respondent did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Having regard to the nature of injuries, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering and disability and Rs.965/- towards medical expenditure with interest at 9% per annum. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and Sri K.Madhav Reddy, learned standing counsel for the respondent. Since this appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into. It is not in dispute that the claimant sustained fracture of his left hand. In his evidence as P.W.1 he stated that operation was conducted and steel rod was inserted. He incurred an expenditure of Rs.20,000/- for his treatment. He is a cleaner by profession and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he was attending to his duties as usual. P.W.2 is a consultant orthopedic surgeon. He examined the claimant on 21.6.2002 clinically and radiologically. He found that the claimant while undergoing treatment in the Osmania General Hospital was treated for grade-I compound fracture of the left humarous and was operated on 29.8.2000 and 2.5.2000. He noticed the disability to the left humarous and he also noticed the decrease in the range of movements of left elbow and right shoulder. The claimant is unable to do any heavy work with left upper limb. He found the injuries as grievous in nature and he found the resultant disability at 30% partial and permanent. He denied the suggestion that the said injury was neither grievous nor it was less than 30%. As mentioned above, the respondent did not adduce any evidence nor it could impeach the medical evidence of P.W.2. It is, therefore, to be held that the claimant suffered 30% disability in the accident. Although the Tribunal noticed the said fact, it awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.40,000/-, which in my opinion is not correct. According to the learned counsel, the claimant was working as a cleaner on a lorry and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. He was aged 19 years and therefore, applying Schedule-II to the Act, he is entitled for more than Rs.1,00,000/-. As noted above, P.W.1 in his evidence clearly stated that he was working as cleaner and earning Rs.2,000/- per month which is not in dispute. The respondent also did not dispute his age. Taking the income at Rs.2,000/- per month, the loss of income would be Rs.24,000/- per annum. Applying multiplier 16 as per the said Schedule, the loss would be Rs.3,84,000/-. Since the disability is 30%, the loss of earning capacity would be Rs.1,15,200/-. However, the claimant has restricted his claim to Rs.1,00,000/- only. The Tribunal has already awarded Rs.40,000/- towards disability. It is, therefore, to be held that the claimant is entitled for Rs.60,000/- as enhancement in this appeal. The said enhancement shall carry 6% interest from the date of claim petition till the date of realization. The award passed in O.P.No.625 of 2000 is modified accordingly. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J AUGUST 12, 2010 Tsr