THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.3964 of 2004 ORAL JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of M.V. Act is filed challenging the order and decree made in O.P.No.239 of 2001 dated 23.3.2004 on the file of the learned II Addl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Appellant is claimant in the O.P. First respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident and second respondent is Insurance Company. According to the claimant, on 29.12.2000 while he was proceeding on his Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP 28R 2916 along with one K.Ravi Kumar from R.K. Puram X Road to L.B. Nagar and when they reached near Astalaxmi Temple on sub-way, one Tipper bearing No.AP 28T 9207 which was stopped therein, suddenly started and dashed his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which, he fell down and sustained crush injury to his left foot and ankle, besides other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet, Hyderabad and he was treated in the hospital as inpatient from 29.12.2000 to 12.1.2001 and during the said period, he had undergone major surgery. Due to the said accident, the muscle flap was completely damaged and was covered with SSG CARVENTED FROM RT. THROUGH. Even after discharge from the hospital, he has to attend and review for every 5 days to the Surgeon concerned for treatment. The claimant filed claim petition before the Court below contending that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent manner of the driver of the Tipper. According to the claimant, he is aged 28 years and working as Lecturer in Sai Sudheer Junior and Degree College and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.11,000/-. Thus, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The first respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, has filed counter denying the allegations of the claimant and stated that the accident had not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tipper. Likewise, the second respondent-Insurance Company also filed counter denying the allegations made by the claimant. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s tipper by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief ? On behalf of claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A14 and also Ex.X1 were marked. On behalf of respondents, none were examined, however Ex.B1-policy was marked. The Court below, after examining both oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the Driver of the offending tipper and both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay an amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards compensation to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said award, claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel for appellant strenuously contended that the petitioner was working as Lecturer in more than one college and was earning Rs.17,000/- per month and due to the said accident, he could not attend to his duties for more than one year. The total compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- awarded by the Court below is very less compared to the salary and the injuries suffered by the appellant. Whereas the learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the award passed by the Tribunal. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Lecturer and his monthly was fixed at Rs.10,000/-. In a grievous injury of this nature, appellant could not have attended to his normal duties for more than (3) months. Therefore, on the count of loss of income, the claimant is entitled to atleast Rs.30,000/- and accordingly Rs.30,000/- is awarded. Likewise, for the nature of disability suffered by the petitioner, due to a crush injury, awarding of Rs.40,000/- is very less. Awarding Rs.80,000/- on this count would be reasonable. Therefore, the same is enhanced to Rs.80,000/-. The amount awarded on the count of medical expenses Rs.50,000/- is also very less in view of the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant. Therefore, the same can be safely put at Rs.1,00,000/-. Further, no amount was awarded towards pain and suffering in a case of this nature. Petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- under this head. Under those circumstances, the claimant is entitled to the enhanced compensation as enumerated as hereunder: Rs. Ps. 1. Loss of income for 3 months 30,000 2. Transportation 5,000 3. Medical expenses and extra nourishment 1,00,000 4. Disability 80,000 5. Pain and suffering 20,000 ------------- 2,35,000 -------------- Thus, the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,35,000/- on all counts. However, the appellant is entitled to interest at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of appeal till the date of realization. The CMA is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 11.3.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.3964 of 2004 11.3.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.M.A.No.3964 of 2004 Date: 11th March, 2010 Between: Dendukuru Venkata Siva Rama Krishna .. Appellant And G.Sekhar Reddy and another. .. Respondents