THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.4604 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 23.07.2008, in O.P.No.1894 of 2006 on the file of the learned IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, ‘the Act’), was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.5,71,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 13.04.2006, which resulted in amputation of right leg above knee. According to the claimant, on that day, he along with his friend, was going on a motor cycle and when he reached near Food World cross roads, Kukatpally, a lorry bearing No.AP-24-W-979, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle resulting in crush injury of the right leg besides other injuries to the claimant and that he was admitted in Apollo hospital, where his right leg was amputated above knee. It is further stated that the claimant is aged 23 years and is studying 2nd year degree. The 2nd respondent herein- owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the appellant- insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation, inter alia on the ground that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant himself. 4. During enquiry before the Tribunal, claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked on his behalf. No oral evidence was adduced, but Ex.B1 was marked on behalf of the appellant-insurer. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5,71,000/- with interest @ 7.5%p.a., from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the same, the insurer preferred the present appeal on the ground of contributory negligence and also questioning the quantum. 6. Claimant has testified the manner in which the accident occurred. According to him, while he was taking ‘U’ turn at a place where such ‘U’ turn was permitted, the lorry coming in the opposite direction at high speed dashed against him, though there was considerable distance between the two vehicles and the lorry driver could have easily seen the claimant taking the ‘U’ turn. The testimony of P.W.1 as to the manner in which the accident occurred is supported by Ex.A1-First Information Report and Ex.A2-panch report. The owner of the lorry remained ex parte and the driver of the lorry is also not examined to speak as to how the accident occurred. The testimony of P.W.1 is not discredited in any manner and no contra evidence has been adduced by the owner or the insurer to show that there was any contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In the absence of any such contra evidence adduced by the owner or the insurer, their plea of contributory negligence on the part of the claimant remains totally unsubstantiated. The Tribunal has therefore rightly rejected the same, duly taking into consideration the evidence, oral and documentary, adduced by the claimant and recorded a finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The said finding, which is based on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, does not therefore call for any interference. 7. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,71,000/-. The medical evidence on record established that the claimant has sustained multiple injuries, including a crush injury of the right leg, which resulted in amputation. Though the claimant has not examined the doctors, who treated him, or conducted the surgery, he filed the medical bills; surgical bills and also the physically handicap certificate- Ex.11. In Ex.A11, it is stated that the claimant sustained a crush injury to the right leg and amputation was done above knee and the physical disability estimated by the medical board is to the extent of 70%. The claimant is a young boy aged 23 years and is a student, studying 2nd year of degree course. The Tribunal has estimated the income of the claimant at Rs.3000/- per month, which is considered reasonable in view of the fact that even an ordinary labourer can be expected to earn an average of Rs.100/- per day. Though the disability certificate-Ex.A11 estimates the percentage of disability at 60%, the Tribunal has taken the same only at 50%. The claimant has not filed any cross appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,06,000/- towards loss of earning capacity on account of 50% disability, applying the multiplier ‘17’, which is considered reasonable (Rs.3000/- X 12 X 17 X 50%). The Tribunal has also awarded a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards medical expenses, covered by the receipts-Exs.A3 to A6; Rs.85,114/-, covered by the receipt-Ex.A7 and Rs.1785/- covered by the surgical bills-Ex.A9. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.45,922/- against the final medical bill-Ex.A16 issued by the Apollo hospital after deducting the amounts already paid under Exs.A3 to A6. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.5000/- towards transport charges; Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,10,000/- for the medicines. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the absence of any medical evidence, the Tribunal ought not to have awarded the above amounts though the claimant has not examined the doctor, who treated him and who conducted the surgery or anyone connected with the issuance of Ex.A11-disability certificate. It is to be noted that it is a case of amputation of the right leg above knee and the said injury would speak for itself about the extent of the permanent disability and consequent loss of amenities of life the claimant has been subjected to. Claimant is a young boy aged 23 years and studying in a college and virtually all his future prospects, both in terms of education, career and otherwise have all been marred beyond retrieval. Under those circumstances, the total amount of Rs.5,71,000/- awarded by the Tribunal on the whole cannot be considered to be excessive or unreasonable. The claimant is however, entitled for interest only @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. 9. Subject to the above modification, in the rate of interest, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed subject to the above modification regarding the rate of interest, which is now fixed at 6% p.a. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th November, 2011 Tsy