THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1717 of 2001 Date:05.03.2010 Between: Noor Basha Nabhisha …Appellant And R.Venkata Siva Naga Lakshmi and another ….Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1717 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2001 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur in M.V.O.P.No.194 of 1998 granting compensation of Rs.1,10,000/- to the injured-claimant as against the claim of Rs.1,75,000/-. 2. The injured-claimant being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation, preferred the appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Since the appeal is only with regard to the quantum of compensation and further the claim petition being filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has to be seen as to whether the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is in accordance with the said provision. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 5. The appellant is said to be a cleaner in the lorry and was considered by the learned Tribunal as such. 6. The oral evidence of the appellant who was examined as PW- 1 regarding his income is that he was being paid an amount of Rs.1300/- as salary in addition to Rs.500/- as batta per month. Thus, according to him, he was getting income of Rs.1800/- per month. But, the learned Tribunal on the ground that there was no documentary proof regarding the income of the appellant, considered his income as Rs.15,000/- per annum which is provided in the Second Schedule annexed to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act as that of the income relating to non-earning persons. The Tribunal, according to this Court, erroneously took into consideration the income of the non-earning persons mentioned in the Second Schedule. Having accepted the version of the appellant that he is a lorry cleaner by profession, the Tribunal ought to have accepted the income of the appellant as Rs.1800/- per month i.e. as stated by him in his evidence since it is reasonable. His annual income, therefore, for the purpose of computation of compensation would be Rs.1800/- x 12 = Rs.21,600/-. 7. Due to the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant’s left foot was amputated. PW-2, the doctor examined on behalf of the appellant estimated the disability at 40% which of-course is evidenced by Ex.A-5-disability certificate. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that since the appellant can no longer work as lorry cleaner and his disability can be considered to be total which shall not be restricted to 40%. I absolutely see no force in the contention urged by the learned counsel since the claim petition is filed basing on structural formula basis i.e. under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act the compensation has to be determined in accordance with the said provision. 8. Explanation to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act makes it clear that permanent disability for the purpose of this provision shall have the same meaning and extent as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (Act 8 of 1923). 9. As per Schedule I Part-II of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the disability in relation of amputation of one foot can be considered as 50%. Therefore, in the present case, the disability of the appellant can be considered to be 50% instead of 40% which was taken by the learned Tribunal. The loss of earnings of the appellant are Rs.21,600/- x 18 (the relevant multiplier) x 50 divided by 100 = Rs.1,94,400/-. This apart, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be granted to the appellant for pain and suffering. Since no medical bills have been produced, no amount can be granted towards medical expenses. In all, the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,99,400/-. The compensation works out the amount higher than actually claimed in the claim petition, the amount need not be restricted to the amount actually claimed, even though the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.89,400/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realization. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:05.03.2010 CCM THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.1717 of 2001 Date:05.03.2010