HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 709 of 2008 Date: 21-07-2011 Between: Ummidi Subbarao ………. Appellant And Rechakonda Venkata Satyanarayana and others ………. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 709 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order dated 31-10-2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.162 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Court, East Godavari, Kakinada. The appellant herein is the petitioner in the said M.V.O.P. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 10-01-2006 at about 7-30 AM, while the petitioner was proceeding on a cycle towards the tank situated at E.B.C. Colony, Gollaprolu, a lorry bearing No.AP 26T 1969, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner’s cycle, as a result of which the petitioner fell down from his cycle and the front wheel of the lorry passed on his right leg and his right leg was crushed. He also sustained grievous and multiple fracture injuries. Immediately he was admitted in the G.G.H. Kakinada for treatment and the doctors operated to his right leg and due to the crush, it was removed. Therefore, the petitioner filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW-1 besides examining the doctor as PW-2 and Exs.A-1 to A-8 and X-1 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined, however, Ex.B-1, copy of the insurance policy, was got marked. The Tribunal, after considering the entire material placed on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly, allowed the O.P. in part awarding the total compensation of Rs.1,11,302/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, and made the respondents therein jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred the present appeal. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- appellant herein mainly urged that though there is a disability of 55% as per the expert opinion and the income of the petitioner was fixed as Rs.50/- per day, the Tribunal awarded the meagre compensation of Rs.60,000/- towards disability and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning power, which is erroneous, and therefore, the order of the Tribunal needs interference for enhancement of compensation taking into consideration of the income and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents, while supporting the order of the Tribunal, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 6. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for enhancement of the compensation? 7. The factum of the accident is not disputed. Admittedly the offending vehicle is said to be having insurance coverage as on the date of accident. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,000/- towards one grievous injury and two simple injuries; Rs.5,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony; Rs.8,250/- towards loss of earnings; Rs.6,051-78 towards medical expenses; Rs.60,000/- towards disability; and Rs.25,000/- towards loss of earning power and in total awarded an amount of Rs.1,11,302/- under all the heads. While considering the fact that the petitioner was working as a coolie, the Tribunal taken his income as Rs.50/- per day or Rs.1,500/- per month. As noted in Ex.A-5 by the Medical Superintendent, G.G.H. District Medical Board, E.G. District, the percentage of disability is 55%. However, as seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal, without taking into consideration the income and the percentage of disability suffered by the petitioner, granted a lump sum amount of Rs.60,000/- for disability and Rs.25,000/- for loss of earning power, and hence, the same is not sustainable. Therefore, the loss of earnings at 55% of Rs.1,500/-, which is the monthly income of the petitioner, comes to Rs.825/- per month or Rs.9,900/- per annum. The multiplier applicable to the age of the petitioner is ‘14’ as per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VARMA v. DTC [1]. After applying multiplier ‘14’ to the annual loss of earnings of the petitioner at Rs.9,900/-, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.1,38,000/- (Rs.9,900/- X 14). 8. Admittedly the petitioner sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.7,000/- for all the injuries which, in my view, is quite meagre. Therefore, an amount of Rs.15,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs.2,500/- for each simple injury is granted, which is just and reasonable and the total comes to Rs.20,000/-. Further the amounts of Rs.5,000/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony, Rs.8,250/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.6,051-78 ps towards medical expenses granted by the Tribunal, in my opinion, are just and reasonable in the circumstance of the case and they are sustained. Accordingly, in total, the petitioner is entitled to the compensation of Rs.1,77,301/-. 9. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part enhancing the compensation of Rs.60,000/- granted by the Tribunal to Rs.1,77,301/-. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 21-07-2011 YCR [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121