IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2803 OF 1999 BETWEEN Dasari Jangamma. …APPELLANT AND The Managing Director, AP State Road Transport Corporation, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. L. J. Veera Reddy Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. W.V.S. Rajeshwari The Court made the following: - JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant, in O.P.No.1053 of 1996, who was injured in the accident caused on account of the involvement of a tractor and trailor bearing No. AP 04 T 2625 and AP 04 T 2627 respectively. 2. The claimant and seven others were traveling in the said tractor and trailor along with 60 bags of paddy. The said tractor and trailor met with an accident, as the APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 9Z 7114 dashed against the tractor and trailor from behind when it was being driven at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and without blowing horn. The appellant/claimant was injured and he suffered fracture injury to the left hand. He filed the present claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The respondent field a counter denying that there is any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus and disputed its liability. 3. The tribunal below found on issue Nos.1 and 2 that the offending bus was being driven in a rash and negligent manner and on issue No.3, regarding quantum of compensation, the tribunal relied upon the evidence of the Doctor, who treated the claimant, examined as P.W.2. The said medical evidence confirmed that P.W.2 had treated the claimant and after examining the claimant, he stated that there was 20 degrees flextion and 20 degrees of extension of elbow joint restricted. He, therefore, opined that the claimant cannot lift weight and the disability caused in the absence of upper end of radius is to the extent of permanent disability of 20%. The tribunal below also noted that the appellant/claimant was working as coolie and as per the evidence of P.W.1, he was getting Rs.60/- per day prior to the accident. However, the tribunal below did not assess the compensation based on his earnings but has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards partial permanent disability apart from Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- towards incidental and medical expenses and loss of earnings etc. Thus, in aggregate, the tribunal granted a sum of Rs.33,000/- with interest at 12% per annum. Seeking enhancement of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no contra evidence. He also submits that there is no evidence adduced by the respondent, therefore, the averments and the evidence of the appellant ought to have been accepted. He contends that the tribunal has not at all assessed 20% disability and has only awarded a lump sum amount and as such, seeks enhancement. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, contends only with regard to the quantum of compensation that the aggregate amount of Rs.33,000/- already awarded is more than sufficient and no enhancement is warranted in the case. 7. It has to be appreciated that the accident occurred when the appellant was in the age group of 35 to 40 years, as his age is shown as 45 years in the cause title and as per the statement of P.W.1, the accident occurred 2 ½ years ago. However, though the appellant claimed that he is coolie and earning Rs.60/- per day, there is no evidence in support of the same and as such, we have to hypothetically consider that he was earning at least Rs.1,000/- per month. The claimant has suffered 20% disability and the appropriate multiplier as per the second schedule of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, for the age group of 35 to 40 years being 16, the compensation towards 20% disability would work out to, approximately, Rs.40,000/-. The tribunal below has granted only Rs.15,000/- towards partial permanent disability and the same, therefore, warrants enhancement by another sum of Rs.25,000/-. The rest of the claim awarded by the tribunal under the head of pain and suffering and incidental and medical expenses needs no interference. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part enhancing the compensation by a further sum of Rs.25,000/- which shall carry interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till realization. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J October 9, 2009 DSK