THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2756 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 07.01.2005 in O.P.No.1395 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad questioning the quantum of compensation. The claimant made a claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in a motor accident on 03.06.2000 at about 6.30 p.m. when the petitioner was getting upon the lorry bearing No.AP 1 V 990, insured with the 2nd respondent, the driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the petitioner fell down and the lorry ran over him and his left leg was amputated and there was a fracture to the right leg. The police have investigated into the case. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent filed counter denying the allegations in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of nature of the incident, rashness and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record, granted a compensation of Rs.3,38,288/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: The insurance company has not challenged the order of the lower Tribunal and its liability. The learned counsel for the insurance company contends that there is no proof of accident. As can be seen from the order of the lower Tribunal, the evidence of P.W.1, who was injured, was taken into consideration and according to him, when he was getting from the lorry, it was driven and he fell down and the tyres ran over him. P.W.2 also supported the said version. The police have also investigated into the case and filed a charge sheet against the driver of the lorry. Merely because, the petitioner claimed that he was climbing the lorry, it does not mean that he came from behind and there is every possibility of climbing the lorry from aside and consequently on falling the tyres ran over his legs. Therefore, in view of the circumstances, as a question of fact, the lower Tribunal found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and I do not find any error. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the income decided by the lower Tribunal is too low and the petitioner was a hamali and minimum he was earning a sum of Rs.150/- per day. But the lower Tribunal has taken only as Rs.60/- as earnings and, therefore, as there are dependants on him and he was a hard labourer, the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is not just. Therefore, taking into consideration the submission of the appellant, the income of the petitioner is fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month and his annual income comes to Rs.30,000/- and taking into consideration the disability as opined by P.W.2 and the multiplier 17, the income under loss of earnings comes to Rs.4,08,000/-. So far as the pain and suffering is concerned, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- and for maintenance and other expenditure, it has granted reasonable amount, which comes to Rs.19,528/-. Therefore, they do not call for any interference and accordingly, the order of the lower Tribunal is modified by enhancing the loss of earnings from Rs.2,93,760/- to Rs.4,08,000/-. The total compensation to which the petitioner will be entitled is Rs.4,52,528/- (Rupees four lakhs fifty two thousand five hundred and twenty eight only). The petitioner will be entitled for interest at 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 14-11-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2756 of 2011 DATE: 14-11-2011 MR