THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.450 of 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the Order and decree in O.P.No.584 of 1998 dated 15-11-2001, passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum - Additional District Judge, Adilabad, whereby a compensation of Rs.1,54,000/- was awarded to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.3,00,000/-. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. The brief facts are as follows: (a) On 19-01-1995 at about 5.30 P.M., while the claimant was travelling in a tractor-trailer bearing registration No.AP-1-T-9103 and 9104 belonging to respondent Nos.1 and 2, as a coolie (labourer) for transporting a load of stones from Narsapur to Pentagudem, near Peddapeta, driver of the tractor-trailer drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, due to which he lost control over the vehicle and on account of the same, claimant, who was sitting on the trailer, fell on the ground and the load of stones fell on him, as a result, he sustained injuries on his left leg and right knee and other parts of the body. A case in Crime No.5 of 1995 was registered against the driver of the tractor – trailer for the offence under Section 338 IPC by the police Dandepalli Police Station. Immediately, claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Luxettipet, and he was treated there upto 01.02.1995 and on that day he was referred to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where he was admitted on 02.02.1995 and discharged on 3.03.1995. In Gandhi Hospital, his left leg was amputated on 04.02.1995 and a revised amputation was done on 23.02.1995. Claimant took treatment in a private hospital also after discharge from the Government Hospital and he incurred Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.5000/- towards extra-nourishment and Rs.10,000/- towards transport expenses apart from attendant expenses. It is the case of the claimant that he was earning Rs.75/- per day as a coolie loading and unloading material on the tractor-trailer. He claimed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. (b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2, joint owners of the tractor – trailer, filed a counter jointly and respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company Limited, filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “ 1) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 19.01.1995 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor-trailer No.AP-1-T-9103 and 9104 by its driver? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so, to what amount and against whom? 3) To what relief ? ” 5. To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the respondents no evidence was adduced. 6. On the basis of the material available on record, the Tribunal assessed the permanent disability suffered by the claimant at 50% observing that half of the left leg of the claimant was amputated due to the injury sustained by him in the accident and treating him as a coolie and taking his daily income as Rs.50/- a day, which comes to Rs.1,500/- per month and Rs.18,000/- per annum, out of which 50% comes to Rs.9,000/- and taking his age as 30 years as per Exs.A-2 and A-3, injury certificate and discharge card of Gandhi Hopsital respectively, and applying multiplier ‘17’, which is appropriate for the age group of the claimant, awarded a compensation of Rs.1,53,000/- (Rs.9,000/- x 17) towards permanent disability and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant filed this appeal. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that though the claimant was earning Rs.75/- per day and he suffered 80% disability, Tribunal erroneously considered his income as Rs.50/- a day and his disability as 50%. 8. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal and the claimant is entitled to higher compensation? 9. There is no dispute that claimant suffered amputation of his left leg above the knee. The record shows that he was admitted in Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where his left leg was amputated. As per the Workmen’s Compensation Act 1923, percentage of loss of earning capacity can be taken at 60% if the amputation is below middle thigh to below knee. Hence, as per the Workmen Compensation Act, permanent disability suffered by the claimant can be taken at 60% as amputation of his left leg was above the knee. There is also no dispute that by working as a coolie, claimant was earning Rs.50/- a day, which cannot be more than that in 1995. Further, there is no dispute about the claimant being 30 years at the time of accident and for the age group of him, the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’. Accordingly, taking the 60% of the annual income of the claimant as Rs.10,800/- (Rs.18,000/- x 60%) and capitalizing the same with multiplier ‘17’, claimant would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.1,83,600/- towards permanent disability alone which can be rounded off to Rs.1,84,000/-. As the leg of the claimant was amputated twice, he must have suffered severe pain and as he was in hospital for a considerable time and also taken treatement in private hospitals, he must have spent substantial amount towards medicines, extra- nourishment and attendant, hence a sum of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- towards medicines, extra-nourishment and attendant expenses. Therefore, claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,29,000/- which is rounded off to Rs.2,30,000/-. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation to Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty thousand only) from Rs.1,55,000/-. However, claimant is entitled to interest only at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced compensation from the date of petition. Claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation along with the interest accrued thereon in two installments i.e., 50% after one year from now and the remaining compensation two (2) years thereafter. _____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. JUNE 29, 2010. YVL