HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1555 OF 1999 DATED: 11.09.2009 BETWEEN: Shaik Rejyasuddin @ Giyasuddin @ Gousuddin .. Appellant and Mohd. Moinuddin and another .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 1555 OF 1999 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant challenging the Award dated 04.02.1999 in O.P.No.405 of 1994 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Medak at Sanga Reddy. 2. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.05.1994 seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.76,000/- under various heads besides holding that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant and thereby assessed his part of negligence at 50%. 3. The claimant assailed the award on the following grounds. a) The finding of the tribunal that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the claimant is erroneous and the conclusion reached on the said aspect is as a result of improper appreciation of the evidence by the Tribunal which is liable to be set aside in this appeal. b) The amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is very low, the same deserves to be enhanced in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Mrs S.N.Padmini, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent – insurance company. 5. In fact, there was no positive evidence before the learned Tribunal indicating that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant but the said finding was recorded on the mere ground that the accident took place when the claimant was crossing the road and that he was expected to be careful in watching the speeding vehicles on the road. It was also the view of the Tribunal that the driver of the Ambassador car which was involved in the accident could not be expected to anticipate the accident when the claimant suddenly crossed the road. In this context, the learned Tribunal further observed that the claimant did not state in his evidence as PW.1 that he did not give any indication that he was crossing the road by some other means. Arriving at the said conclusion, the learned Tribunal held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. 6. Having gone through the pleadings and the evidence on record on these aspects, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is irrational and baseless. The accident occurred near the village, in the limits of Sanga Reddy Police Station. If that is so, in fact, the driver of the Ambassador car bearing No.ABX 7830 has to be very careful while approaching the village and find out whether anybody is crossing the road or not. Without adverting to the said fact, the Tribunal held that the fault lies with the claimant, who was crossing the road. The insurance company did not examine the driver of the vehicle to show that the accident took place as a result of the claimant suddenly crossing the road. Thus, absolutely there was no material before the learned Tribunal to hold that there was contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. The said finding being not based on evidence, does not stand to reason and it can be set aside in this appeal holding that there is no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. Accordingly, this point is answered in favour of the appellant-claimant. 7. As regards the quantum of compensation, though the claimant who was aged about 52 years on the date of accident claimed to be a tailor and earning Rs.2,000/- per month. He did not adduce any evidence in proof of his avocation or income. However, the learned Tribunal reasonably fixed the income of the claimant at Rs.1800/- per month, be he a tailor or not. Therefore, in my view the Tribunal rightly arrived at the income of the claimant for the purpose of computing compensation and the said finding does not require any interference. Similarly, the Tribunal having regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the consequent hospitalization considering it as three months, has granted an amount of Rs.5,400/- towards his earnings during the said period. 8. In NAGAPPA v. GURUDAYAL SINGH AND OTHERS[1] it was laid down that the award need not be limited to the amounts specified in the claim petition. The only embargo is that the compensation should be just compensation. The Tribunal therefore, is not barred from awarding compensation in excess of what is claimed. Therefore, in this appeal, this Court can enhance the amount of compensation and the said enhancement can be even more than what was actually claimed in the claim petition, provided, it appears to be just and reasonable. 9. While computing the future earnings and awarding compensation under the remaining heads the Tribunal did not adopt the correct method. 10. To prove the injuries sustained by him, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and PW.2 the doctor who treated the claimant and issued disability certificate. Ex.A.3, the medical certificate discloses that the claimant sustained the following injuries: i) ½ “ x ½ “ cut wound in the parietal region ii) ½ “ x ½ “ cut wound on the eye brow. iii) Dislocation of the femoral head iv) Fracture of left hip v) Fracture of collar bone. 11. PW.2 assessed the disability of the claimant as 40%, which is partial and permanent. The annual income of the claimant is Rs.1800 x 12 = 21,600/-. Even with regard to the accident, which occurred prior to the advent of the Second Schedule, the relevant table given in the Second Schedule can be followed. Since it is scientific and beneficial to the claimants. The relevant multiplier for the age of the claimant is 11. The future loss of earnings for which, the claimant is entitled is Rs.21,600/- x 40/100 x 11 = 95,040/-. This apart, claimant is entitled for an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering. An amount of Rs.5,400/- granted by the Tribunal towards past earnings and Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment do not require any interference. Thus, the claimant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.1,28,440/-. The enhancement will be therefore, Rs.1,28,440/- minus Rs.38,300/- = Rs.90,140/-. However, the interest granted by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum being on higher side is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Thus, this point is answered in favour of the claimant. 12. Since the accident occurred in the year 1994 the claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire amount together with interest. 13. The appeal, therefore, succeeds and the same is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 11.09.2009 kvrm [1] AIR 2003 SC 674