THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4568 of 2004 Between E. Nagesh V Md. Rafi and another THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4568 of 2004 Judgment: 1) The claimants filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in OP No.2741 of 2001 in its order dated 26th day of July 2004 for the death of the deceased in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14-10-2002. 2) The facts in nutshell are that on 14-10-2002 at about 11.30 a.m. the petitioner was proceeding from Narsapur on auto bearing No. AP 09W 5379 after reaching outskirts of Narsapur and Kondapur cross roads, towards Chintal at the same time one auto came from opposite direction and then the petitioner’s auto driver took the vehicle extreme left side and he could not control the vehicle and the vehicle turned turtle due to which the petitioner and other passengers fell down and received injuries. The petitioner was shifted to the Gandhi Hospital. The petitioner filed the present O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. 2) Before the Tribunal 1st remained ex-parte. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition. On the basis of the rival claims, the Tribunal framed necessary issues for trial. To substantiate the claim the claimant examined himself as P.W.1, and P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the respondent R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was marked. 3) The Tribunal on consideration of the evidence held that the claimant sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and granted compensation of Rs.43,000/-. 4) The petitioner-claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and stated that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto he fell down and received the injuries. Considering the documentary evidence Exs.A.1 and A.2, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto. According to the claimant, he was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and working as Welder and used to earn Rs.5000/- per month. The Tribunal took Rs.3000/- as monthly income of the claimant. However, the Tribunal did not rely on the disability certificate issued by P.W.2 on the premise that in none of the records of the Gandhi Hospital decided that the petitioner had any disability and that the said disability certificate was issued after one year of the accident. The fact remains is that as per the discharge card that the petitioner was admitted in the hospital on 14-10-2002 and discharged on 28- 11-2002, wherein it was mentioned about the fracture in right femur, fracture to right ankle and nails were inserted. According to Ex.A.4 the petitioner sustained the injuries that 1) Laceration over left Maxilla, 2) Laceration over left eyebrow 3) laceration over left knee on medial side, 4) abrasion over front of left side of chest 5) abrasion over left knee 6) abrasions –multiple over right foot 7) laceration over rite side of lip and tongue. P.W.2 is Orthopedic Doctor at Osmania General Hospital and no evidence in rebuttal was adduced by the respondents in that regard. The disability certificate was issued by the doctor P.W.2 who is the Orthopedic doctor at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad stating that the petitioner, who was working as Welder, sustained disability to the extent of 40% which is partial and permanent in nature and functional disability would be more. Now, the claimant also filed MACMA MP NO.4149 of 2010 seeking permission to amend the claim under ‘permanent disability’ on account of 40% of physical disability from Rs.1,11,500/- to Rs.2,61,500/- in column No.25 II (b) and thus the total claim to be enhanced from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.3,35,000/-. Considering the above circumstances, MACMA MP No.4149 of 2010 is ordered. 5) By taking into account disability at 40%, as per the evidence of the doctor P.W.2 and also the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, and monthly income at Rs.3000/- , and multiplier 16 for the age of the claimant, the loss of total earnings comes to Rs.2,30,400/- ( i.e. Rs.3000 x 12 x 40% x 16 ). Thus, an amount of Rs.43,000/- granted by the Tribunal under different heads is enhanced to Rs.2,30,400/- as compensation on all counts. 6) Subject to above, the appeal is allowed. The claimant is entitled for the enhanced amount of compensation subject to payment of additional court fee on the enhanced amount as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH ( 2002 (8) SUPREME 497). No costs. GM, J Dt; 16-12-2010 kk TH HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No.4568 of 2004 Dated 16-12-2010