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.1357 of 2003 Between: Dudekula Allabakash ..... APPELLANT(S) AND Bhola Shankar Goud and another .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1357 of 2003 ORDER: The appellant herein filed claim petition in M.V.O.P.No.234 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool, seeking compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, alleging that on 07.02.1999 at about 09.30 p.m. while he, along with others, was proceeding in an auto rickshaw near Nandamuri Nagar in Nandyal on extreme left side of the road, one tractor bearing No.AP-21-U-6022, owned by the 1st respondent, being driven by its driver in a high speed came in their opposite direction from Nandyal on wrong side of the road and dashed against the auto rickshaw, in which they were travelling, resulting amputation of his left leg. Both the respondents resisted the petition by filing counters denying all the averments made in the petition. The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident that occurred on 07.02.1999 at about 09.30 p.m. near Nandhal, Kurnool District, which resulted in injuries to the petitioner, was on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tractor AP-21/U.6022 by its driver or due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw AP- 21/U.0197 by its driver or both? (2) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner and the insurer of the auto rickshaw AP-21/U.0197? (3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the claimed amount of Rs.7,00,000/-? If not, how much and against whom? (4) To what relief? On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, though no oral evidence was adduced, the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1. Considering the material on record, the Tribunal, holding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Tractor by its driver, awarded Rs.4,07,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization as compensation to the appellant payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded to him, the present appeal is by the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant 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 appellant 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 appellant is entitled? A perusal of the material available on record makes it clear that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment; Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.3,57,000/- towards permanent disability; totaling to Rs.4,07,000/-. As seen from the record, the Tribunal took the income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/- per month whereas the appellant claims that he was earning Rs.3,000/- to Rs.3,500/- per month as a goldsmith. There is no dispute that the appellant was a goldsmith by profession. So, I take the income of the appellant as Rs.3,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.36,000/-. As per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] for determination of compensation in claim petitions filed under Section 166 of the Act for the age of 23 years is ‘18’. So, the compensation payable towards permanent disability is Rs.36,000/- x 70% x 18 = Rs.4,53,600/-. I am not inclined to disturb the amounts granted by the Tribunal under the other heads. So, the appellant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment + Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering + Rs.15,000/- towards attendant charges + Rs.4,53,600/- towards permanent disability; totaling to Rs.5,03,600/- rounding it off to Rs.5,04,000/-. Therefore, the appeal is allowed-in-part and the award of the Tribunal is modified and an award is passed for Rs5,04,000/- with proportionate costs before the Tribunal payable by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest at 9% per annum on Rs.4,07,000/- from the date of the petition till the date of realization and at 9% per annum on Rs.97,000/- from today till the date of realization. The parties shall bear their own costs in this appeal. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 CVRK [1] AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 3104