IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.772 of 2003 Between: T.Rajesh Kumar ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Sibram Routh and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.772 of 2003 ORDER: Appellant herein filed claim petition in O.P.No.359 of 2000 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizianagaram, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for the injuries sustained by him, stating that on 03.03.1999 while he was travelling in a bus belonging to APSRTC to go to Vizianagaram, and when the bus reached Duvvapeta near Jonnada, at about 8.30 p.m., the lorry bearing No.OR-10A-2241, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with respondent Nos.3 and 4, being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner and at a high speed, dashed against a lorry, a car and also the bus in which he was travelling, resulting death of the driver of the bus on the spot and injuries to some persons including himself. Respondents 1 and 3 herein remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Respondents 2 and 4, who are owner and insurer, respectively, of the offending vehicle, resisted the petition by filing counters denying the allegations. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP-26U-1269 or the driver of the Jeep bearing No.AP-7U-5126 or both? (2) Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation and, if so, to what amount and against whom? (3) To what relief? On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle i.e. lorry, awarded Rs.77,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Dissatisfied by the compensation awarded to him, the present appeal is by the claimant. The learned counsel for the claimant vehemently contended that the Tribunal has committed error in not awarding proper compensation. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that the Tribunal has granted compensation more than what the claimant is entitled to and so there is no need to enhance the same. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is ‘Just’ and, if not, to what compensation the claimant is entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.63,750/- towards loss of earnings due to partial permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.3,250/- towards extra nourishment; totaling to Rs.77,000/-. The Supreme Court in HARDEO KAUR vs. RAJASTHAN STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] observed as under: “The determination of compensation in respect of injury cases must be liberal and the amount of compensation so awarded should not be niggardly and at the same not a wind fall as a profit making venture through the Tribunals or Courts. When the compensation is awarded by the Courts and Tribunals even the tort feasor should feel that he is atoned for the sin committed by him in committing the accident robbing the precious life of a human being and injuring the innocent person for no fault of his and the guidelines from such precedents is only to emphasise that if there are two precedents dealing with the same question of assessing the compensation, the one which has adopted a liberal approach should be preferred than the one which has adopted the conservative approach.” As per the material available on record, the claimant claims to be aged 26 years by the date of accident and was doing aquaculture business but failed to produce any evidence in respect thereof. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly took the age of the claimant to be ‘25 years’ as mentioned in Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate. Though the Tribunal came to conclusion that even a coolie would be getting a minimum of Rs.50/- per day, but erred in fixing the income of the claimant to be Rs.15,000/- per annum and the Tribunal ought to have fixed the same to be Rs.18,000/- per annum. According to P.W.2, who treated the claimant and issued Ex.A.6 Disability Certificate, the partial permanent disability was assessed to be 25%. The Tribunal was right in applying the multiplier ‘17’ for the age of the claimant i.e. 25 years. Therefore, the claimant is entitled to Rs.18,000/- x 25% x 17 = Rs.76,500/- towards loss of earnings due to partial permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. As per Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate, the claimant suffered one grievous injury and five simple injuries. As per the Second Schedule provided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, the injured is entitled to damages of Rs.5,000/- for each grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- for each simple injury. Therefore, as the claimant suffered one grievous injury and five simple injuries, the Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Though the claimant claims Rs.40,000/- towards medicines, by filing Ex.A.7 bunch of medical bills for Rs.35,414-75ps, inasmuch as he failed to adduce any evidence relating to the treatment undergone by him either by examining the Doctor who treated him or by producing the prescriptions to substantiate his claim, the Tribunal rejected to grant any amount under that head. However, since it is proved from Ex.A.2 Wound Certificate that he suffered one grievous injury and five simple injuries and he must have spent some amount for treatment of the same, I inclined to grant Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, the claimant claims Rs.10,000/- towards transport and extra nourishment and the Tribunal granted Rs.3,250/- under that head. I inclined to enhance the same to Rs.3,500/-. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.76,500/- towards loss of earnings due to partial permanent disability + Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses + Rs.3,500/- towards transport and extra nourishment, totaling to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at the rate of 7% per annum. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part and the award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs.1,00,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 to 4 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.77,000/-, granted by the Tribunal, from the date of the petition till the date of realization and with interest at 7% per annum on Rs.23,000/- enhanced by this Court from the date of this order till the date of realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 1261