HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.75 of 2006 Date:23.12.2010 Between: United India Insurance Co., rep. by its Divl. Manager., Warangal ….Appellant. And: R.V. Prasada Rao and another …..Respondents. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.75 of 2006 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Seshasayana Reddy) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 05.09.2005 passed in O.P.No.1007 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, whereby and whereunder the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal allowed the O.P in part and granted the compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till date of realization. The 1st respondent is the claimant in O.P.No.1007 of 2005. He filed the OP under Section 166(1)(a) of M.V. Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.15,65,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor accident occurred on 11.06.2003. The claimant was a Area Sales Officer in Madras Marketing Agencies, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. He was drawing a salary of Rs.11,000/-. By virtue of his employment, he was required to travel extensively. On 11.06.2003, he was returning to his village on his Hero Honda Motor cycle bearing No.AP 24 H 906 and when he reached near Mandal Revenue Office, Chivvemal at about 8.30 a.m, the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 20 3933 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against his motor cycle. As a result, he fell on road and received multiple injuries. He was shifted to Area Hospital, Suryapet and thereafter to Yashoda Hospital, Malakpet for further treatment. He took treatment as an inpatient for several days and he under went several surgeries because of injuries received by him in the accident. He became disabled and lost his earnings capacity. He sustained 50% permanent disability because of the injuries received by him in the accident. Police registered a case against the driver of the auto bearing No.AP 20 V 3933 for his rash and negligent driving. He claimed compensation of Rs.15,65,500/-. According to him, the insurer and the owner of the auto are liable to pay the compensation. The owner remained exparte before the Tribunal. The insurer filed counter disputing the claim of the claimant. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred on 11.6.2003 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle bearing No.AP 20 V 3933 (Auto) driven by it’s driver, as per S. 166 of M.V. Act? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On the behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as P.W.1 besides examined two more witnesses as P.Ws.2 to 3. He marked 12 documents as Exs.A-1 to A-12 Case sheets of him were marked as Exs.C-1 and C-2. On behalf of the insurer, neither ocular nor documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP 20 V 3933 and that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the OP in part by judgment dated 05.09.2005. Hence, this appeal filed by the insurer. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer and perused the order impugned in revision and the material brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurer submits that the quantum of amount fixed by the Tribunal is on high side and therefore, the same is required to be reduced. A further submission is made that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the evidence brought on record and therefore, the order impugned in the appeal is liable to be set aside. The claimant got himself examined as P.W.1. He being the injured in the accident is the best person to speak about the circumstances under which the accident occurred. He categorically stated that the auto came in a high speed and dashed against his motor cycle and thereby he fell down and sustained injuries. Indisputably, a case was registered against the auto driver regarding the accident and police after investigation filed charge sheet against the auto driver. This fact has been taken note of by the Tribunal in recording of finding on issue No.1. Relevant portion of the order passed by the Tribunal is noted and it is thus: “The FIR and charge sheet respectively speaks volumes and that the second respondent did not adduce any evidence to disprove the negligence or the nature of accident. So, the material on hand is sufficient to come to a conclusion that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent act of driver of the auto only. In contra, the learned standing counsel for respondent No.2 in his written arguments contended, in so far as the accident is concerned, this respondent company has not disputed. So, by it, it can safely be presumed that there is no denial of accident by the contesting respondent. As such, no need to discuss any more and on perusal of the material on hand, the petitioner contended in his petition that the accident was caused by the driver of auto only.” P.W.1 is the injured in the accident. He narrated the accident in which he sustained injuries. No contra evidence has been adduced by the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal is justified in recording a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. We are not persuaded by the learned counsel for the appellant to disturb the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal after taking note of the gravity of the injuries received by the claimant and percentage of disability, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs.16,58,900/-. However, having taken note of the fact that the Mathematical calculation resulted in granting compensation on high side, reduced the same to Rs.12,00,000/-. There is no appeal filed by the claimant seeking enhancing of the compensation. The claimant sustained 50% of the disability. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs. Ram Singh Gaud[1] awarded compensation in case of injury for loss o future earning and applied multiplier method for calculating the same. The same principle was approved by the Supreme Court in subsequent decisions in Priya Vasant Kalgutkar vs. Murad Shaikh[2]. The claimant sustained 50% of the disability. There is also no evidence on record that because of the injuries sustained by the claimant that he lost his job. The Tribunal has taken this 50% as a notional functional disability and thereby arrived his loss of earning and fixed the total compensation at Rs.10,46,400/-. In the given facts and circumstances, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and we do not see any valid ground to interfere with the order impugned in the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ B. SESHASAYANA REDDY,J. _____________________ P.DURGA PRASADJ. Date:23.12.2010. Gk. HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY & HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A.No.75 of 2006 Date:23.12.2010 Gk. [1] (2007) 14 SCC 61 [2] (2009) 15 SCC 54