IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1961 OF 2002 BETWEEN Mudimela Konda Reddy. …APPELLANT AND Kolluri Prasad Kumarand another. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Y. V. Ravi Prasad Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. R. Briz Mohan Singh The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the claimant, who had sought compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 03.01.1994, dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P.No.520 of 1994 by award dated 13.03.2002. 2. It has been claimed by the claimant that he was 32 years old and working as an Executive in a private company drawing an amount of Rs.3,100/- per month. While returning from work, he suffered the aforesaid accident when the vehicle belonging to the first respondent and insured by the second respondent dashed against his Hero Honda bike. Alleging that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner, resulting in serious injuries and prolonged medical treatment, a claim for Rs.5,00,000/- was made in the aforesaid claim petition. The tribunal found on evidence that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the first respondent and the tribunal also found that the claimant, as per his date of birth, was aged 35 years on the date of accident. The claim for salary of the claimant was assessed on the basis of salary certificate – Ex.A5 and the salary slip – Ex.A6 and quantified at Rs.3,270/-. The medical evidence produced by the claimant was considered by the tribunal and taking into consideration Ex.A24 – 14 X-Rays, a sum of Rs.67,970/- was allowed. Similarly, the tribunal also granted a sum of Rs.4,500/- towards attendant charges, another sum of Rs.4,500/- towards extra-nourishment and a sum of Rs.45,780/- towards loss of earnings for the period of 15 months during which he was under treatment. To the extent of pain and suffering a sum of Rs.50,000/- was added and to the extent of disability suffered by him, as is evident from Exs.A7 and A8, a lump sum of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded. The present appeal is filed by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation to the extent of disallowed claim. 3. Heard both sides. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the disability of the appellant was not properly appreciated by the tribunal below. Learned counsel submits that the disability is almost 90% as per the disability certificate – Ex.A12. He also submits that the future earnings as well as the job of the claimant was not taken into consideration by the tribunal while awarding an aggregate lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability. He also submits that several other medial bills, which are exhibited as Exs.A18 to A23 are not taken into consideration and thereby an approximate amount of Rs.44,000/- covered by the said documents has not been awarded. Learned counsel also relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM SINGH GAUD[1] in support of the proposition that loss of future income was required to be assessed by the tribunal by adding the appropriate multiplier relevant to the age of the claimant at least in tune with the second schedule to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submits that the appellant himself resigned the job under his letter of resignation – Ex.A7. It is, therefore, not as if that he lost the job on account of the accident. He also submits that as per the medical certificate except for movement of right hand he is able to attend to day-to-day work and the disability, therefore, cannot be said to be 90% as claimed. So far as medical bills are concerned, the learned counsel fairly submits that to the extent of the quantified amount covered by the exhibited documents – Exs.A18 to A23, are required to be proved as per the evidence and then only they could have been relied upon. 6. I have considered the aforesaid contentions. It is noticed from Ex.A7, which is letter of resignation of the claimant, that he himself has tendered resignation, as he is unable to attend to his work. The job requirement of an Executive, therefore, cannot be fulfilled by the claimant on account of the disability suffered by him. The loss of job, therefore, is clearly attributable to the accident and the same has to be treated on par with loss of earnings and must be compensated appropriately. The disability as is evident from Ex.A10 certificate issued by the Doctor of Malara Hospital where the claimant took treatment shows that the disability is almost 100%. In fact, the doctor opines in the said document that his right hand is almost, as if, amputated. Similarly, Ex.A12 another medical certificate, which is also the assessed disability by Doctor in Andhra Pradesh, shows that the disability is 90%. The salary certificate shows that the claimant was earning Rs.3,270/- per month and when his disability is almost 100% there is no reason as to why at least that amount is not taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing his loss of earnings. The tribunal, therefore, was not justified in awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards disability and as such, the claim of the claimant deserves appropriate enhancement. 7. It is, no doubt, true that the claimant resigned the job and as such, there is no scope for considering his future earnings. However, taking his earning as Rs.3,270/- and deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses, his monthly earning would work out to Rs.2,000/- and his annul earnings would be Rs.24,000/-. The said amount of annual earnings if multiplied by multiplier ‘16’ as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2], the compensation would work out to Rs.3,84,000/-. The medical bills covered by Exs.A18 to A23 work out to Rs.44,000/- and the said amount is also allowable and thereby the compensation would work out to Rs.4,28,000/-. The tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- compensation towards disability. Deducting the same from the amount arrived at, as above, the compensation needs to be enhanced by Rs.3,28,000/-. However, the aggregate claim of the claimant being for Rs.5,00,000/- the enhancement herein shall stand restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- - Rs.2,72,000/- = Rs.2,28,000/- and the rate of interest on the enhanced amount shall be at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J December 18, 2009 DSK [1] 2007 (7) SUPREME 450 [2] 2009 ACJ 1298