THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD M.A. C.M.A. No. 1317 of 2008 and Cross-Objections Oral Judgment: (Per N.V. Ramana, J.) The appellant-Insurance Company aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 27.07.2005, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge, Ongole, awarding compensation of Rs.10,98,600/- to respondent No.1-claimant as against his claim for Rs.15,00,000/- contending that the compensation awarded is Tribunal is exorbitant and needs reduction. While respondent No.1-claimant filed cross-objections seeking enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the compensation awarded is very meagre. On 08.05.2006 at about 1.00 a.m., respondent No.1 while going on his bicycle on Tirupati-Renigunta Road met with an accident when a jeep bearing No. PY 01E 1378, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bicycle from behind. In the said accident, respondent No.1 sustained grievous injuries and suffered permanent disability. Respondent No.1 contending that he was working in Varthamaanam daily, as News Co-ordinato, Sub-Editor in Astram evening daily, and conducting tuitions for Mathematic students and getting Rs.15,000/-, and due to the permanent disability suffered by him, his earning capacity has come done, filed claim petition before the Tribunal against respondent No.2 owner of the vehicle and the appellant with whom the offending vehicle was insured, claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. Respondent No.2 remained ex parte. While the appellant- Insurance Company filed counter and additional counter taking a stand that the jeep belonging to respondent No.2, which is insured with them is not involved in the accident; that it is a case of hit and run. Respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 colluded with each other. The driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence, and the claim made by respondent No.1-claimant is excessive and exorbitant. Respondent No.1-claimant examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and marked Exs. A1 to A18, while the appellant-Insurance Company, examined R.Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. B1 to B3. The Tribunal having considered the rival contentions in the light of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the accident in which respondent No.1-claimant sustained grievous injuries and became paraplegic permanent disability occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle belonging to respondent No.2, by its driver. However, in the absence of any positive proof produced by respondent No.1-claimant to show that his income is Rs.15,000/- per month, the Tribunal considering the fact that respondent No.1-claimant is an highly educated person, took his monthly income at Rs.5,000/- and as he suffered 100% disability, applied the multiplier of 16 and worked out the compensation to Rs.9,60,000/- and further granted a sum of Rs.5,000/- for grievous injury and Rs.1,000/- for each two simple injuries, and thus granted Rs.7,000/- under the head pain and suffering. The Tribunal further granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses even though respondent No.1-claimed Rs.5,00,000/- under the said head; Rs.1,600/- towards transportation and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of conjugal happiness and loss of amenities. Thus, in all the Tribunal granted Rs.10,98,600/- as compensation to respondent No.1-claimant and directing both the appellant and respondent No.2 to pay the same to respondent No.1-claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that since there was contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.1-claimant in riding the bicycle which resulted in causing of the accident, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability on respondent No.1 also. He further contended that the awarding of interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation awarded is on the higher side and needs to be reduced. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1- claimant submitted that respondent No.1 was drawing income of Rs.12,000/- per month. As respondent No.1 has incurred medical expenditure for his treatment, the Tribunal ought to have granted the amount claimed towards the medical expenditure. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent No.1-claimant, and perused the judgment under appeal. Though the appellant contends that there is contributory negligence on the part of respondent No.1-claimant in the causing of the accident, in which he sustained injuries and permanent disability, the fact remains, the Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence adduced by the appellant as well as respondent No.1-claimant, both oral and documentary, including the evidence of the eye-witness to the accident, whose name is included in the FIR, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, and that the driver of the vehicle was even convicted for rash and negligent driving by the criminal court. The said finding recorded by the Tribunal, being based on the evidence available on record, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere therewith, much less say that respondent No.1-claimant contributed to the accident. The Tribunal upon appreciating the evidence on record with respect to the injuries sustained by respondent No.1 in the accident, which includes medical evidence, found that respondent No.1 sustained traumatic fracture of 11 vertebra and he was operated for compression at thorasic 11 vertebra and spine fixation with steel road. The injuries sustained by him in the accident have crippled respondent No.1 completely and he has become paraplegic. The Tribunal further found that Doctors, namely P.W. 4, who treated him and who issued medical certificate, gave evidence to the effect that respondent No.1 sustained 100% disability and that he will be required medical attention regularly. Thus it is clear that respondent No.1 sustained 100% permanent disability. Now coming to the quantum of compensation. Respondent No.1 as is evident from the evidence produced, is holding Degree of Bachelorof Library and Information Science. He is also a Post- graduate in Applied Mathematics. He also holds proficiency certificate in Library. At the time of accident, it was claimed by respondent No.1 that he was working as Sub-Editor in Varthamanam daily and Astram, and this apart, he was also giving tuitions to mathematic students. That he was earning Rs.12,000/- as Sub-Editor and Rs.3,000/- by giving tuitions, and thus in all, he claimed that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, in the absence of respondent No.1 failing to produce the acquittance register to show that he was working as Sub-Editors in the newspapers and in the absence of his failing to examine any independent witness to show that he was giving tuitions, the Tribunal refused to give any credence to the salary certificates produced by respondent No.1 and disbelieved his version that he was earning Rs.15,000/- per month. However, considering the educational qualifications and the income earned by a daily labourer felt it appropriate to fix the monthly salary of respondent No.1 at Rs.5,000/- per month. Now a days, even a manual labourer is earning Rs.200/- per day. And considering the qualifications held by respondent No.1, namely bachelors degree in Library Science and post-graduate degree in Mathematics, we are of the considered opinion that his earnings can be no less than a labourer. Hence, we feel that the monthly salary of respondent No.1 can be safely be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month i.e Rs.72,000/- per annum. Considering the fact that respondent No.1- claimant is an injured and suffered 100% disability, no deductions are required to be made. Hence, the total loss of earning capacity has to be taken at Rs.6,000/- per month for the purpose of computing the compensation. Respondent No.1 at the time of the accident was aged 33 years, and the relevant multiplier that is applicable is 16. Thus the loss of income of respondent No.1 comes to (Rs.72,000/- x 16) Rs. 11,52,000/-. Apart from the said amount, respondent No.1 is also entitled to a sum of Rs.7,000/- for the injuries sustained by him, Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses, extra-nourishment and attendant charges, Rs.1,600/- towards transportation and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of conjugal happiness and amenities as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus in all, respondent No.1 is entitled to compensation of Rs.12,90,600/-. Accordingly, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.10,98,600/- to Rs.12,90,600/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing petition till the date of realization. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant-Insurance Company is dismissed and the cross-objections filed by respondent No.1-claimant are partly allowed. No costs. ________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. ____________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J. Dated: 19th August, 2011 KSR