IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.A No.1196 of 2005 Dated:06-09-2011 Between: Nerella @ Keerthi Balaiah @ Keerthi Rajaiah ….Appellant. And Ceeramalla Yadaiah @ Yadagiri and others. ….Respondents. The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A.C.M.ANo.1196 of 2005 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Durga Prasad) This appeal is filed at the instance of claimant directed against the award passed in O.P.No.327 of 1999 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum – I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar on 31.01.2004. The claimant has filed the above said application claiming compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. According to the petitioner, he was working as Coal Filler in 2-A incline of SCC Limited, Godavarikhani and on 06.01.1999 while he was returning to Godavarikhani on a motor cycle and when he reached Krishna Filling Station, Jyothinagar one lorry bearing No.AET 1734 came from opposite direction being driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed dashed the motor cycle of the petitioner. As a result of which, he sustained communited compound fracture of lower end right femur, communited compound fracture of upper end of right femur, fracture neck of II and III metacarpal, fracutare of neck of scapula and other injuries all over his body. In spite of taking necessary treatment, he has become permanently disabled person. The Insurance Company has opposed the said application by filing counter pleading that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is highly excessive and put the petitioner to strict proof with regard to the allegations made in the petition. On the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident was caused by the 1st respondent/ driver by his rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AET 1734? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to recover compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom? (3) To what relief? The petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined P.Ws.2 to 6 on his behalf and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents, but Ex.B.1 copy of insurance policy was marked. The lower tribunal by taking into consideration of the said oral and documentary evidence held that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry and awarded compensation of Rs.4,80,053/- with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. The claimant having not satisfied with the award of compensation of Rs.4,80,053/- filed the present appeal for enhancement. Learned Counsel for the appellant has pleaded for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the claimant has sustained 100% disability and he lost his employment because of the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The Tribunal has taken into consideration the disability at 60% as fixed under Ex.A.11 supported by the evidence of Doctor P.W.6. As per the evidence of P.W.4, who is working as Chief General Manager, RG-I area of S.C.C. Limited, the claimant was getting a salary of Rs.245/- per day including all allowances and he would have worked for 26 days per month. Thus, the monthly income of the claimant comes to Rs.6,370/-. Since the claimant was removed from service due to the disability sustained by him in the accident, it can be said that the claimant has sustained 100% disability. Thus, the total loss of income of the claimant can be taken as Rs.6,370/-. There is no dispute with regard to the age of the claimant as 38 years. The Tribunal by relying upon the decision in “Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif (1987 (2) ALT 137)” applied the multiplier of 14.81. Even if the multiplier as per the decision rendered in “Smt. Sarla Verma and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009 AIR SCW 4992)” it comes to 15. Thus, the total loss of income of the claimant comes to Rs.6,370 X 12 X 15 = Rs.11,46,600/-. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.7,500/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.60,479/- towards medical bills and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, we do not want to disturb the same. Thus, in all the petitioner is entitled to Rs.12,39,579/- In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the compensation of Rs.4,80,053/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.12,39,579/- with interest at 6% P.A. from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. _______________________ JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA. _____________________________ JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD Dated:06-09-2011 Ksp