THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1696 OF 2003 S. Nabi Saab V Shaik Ekyaz Basha and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1696 OF 2003 Oral Judgment : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP No.159 of 2001 by judgment dated 23-1- 2003. 2) The facts in brief are that while on 17/18-11-2000 at about 1-30 a.m. at Velgode Regulator, the appellant-claimant was standing on a heap of mud on the ground near rear side of the vehicle (tipper) bearing no. AP 13-T 713 and was giving signals to the driver of the said vehicle for reversing the vehicle for unloading the mud at a particular point, and due to slippery of the mud, the claimant fell down on the ground suddenly, but the driver without hearing the cries of the claimant, speedily drove the vehicle on the reverse, as a result the rear side type of the vehicle ran over both the legs of the claimant, thus he sustained injuries and fractures to both the legs. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle in question, the appellant therefore filed O.P. seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. 3) Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry did not choose to contest the matter and he was set ex- parte, the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition. On the basis of the rival claims, appropriate issues were framed and 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 second respondent no witness was examined, however Exs.B.1 and B.2 were marked. 4) The Tribunal on consideration of the unrebutted evidence of the appellant-claimant and P.W.3- cleaner of the tipper and eye witness to the incident, coupled with Exs.A.1, A.3 and A.4 came to the conclusion that the driver of the tipper drove it in a rash and negligent manner, causing injuries to the appellant. The respondents did not choose to examine the driver of the lorry, and considering the circumstances of the case, I see no reason to interfere with the said finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 5) With regard to quantum of compensation, it is in the evidence that the appellant-claimant received injuries resulting in compound fractures to his both legs. Immediately after the accident he was taken to Kurnool Hospital where he was inpatient for about 40 days. According to the evidence of P.W.2-doctor the appellant suffered shortening of left lower limb by two centimeters stiff knee on left side, deformity in left thigh, discharging sinus on left thigh and restricted movement of right knee. P.W.2-doctor also stated that the functional disability is assessed at 40% and the same is permanent in nature. Considering the nature of injuries and other circumstances, I am inclined to take Rs.2000/- as monthly income, and the percentage of disability at 40%, and as the appellant was aged about 34 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be 15, thus total loss of disability comes to Rs.1,44,000/- ( i.e. Rs.2000x 40% x 12x15= Rs.1,44,000/-. Considering Ex.A.5 medical bills, the Tribunal granted Rs.7,200/- towards medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same are confirmed. 6) In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed-in part granting total compensation of Rs.1,76,200/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization on the enhanced amount. No costs. GM, J Kk/1-7-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.1696 OF 2003 1-7-2010