IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH AT HYDERABAD. Dated: November 24, 2010. Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice P. Swaroop Reddy C.M.A.No. 2120 of 2003 Between: Gumpana Srinivasa Rao ..Appellant And Gumpana Nageswara Ra and another ..Respondents PSR, J. C.M.A.No. 2120 of 2003 Judgment This appeal is filed by the petitioner, who is dis-satisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the lower tribunal in M.V.O.P.No. 166 of 1998 by the learned Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Guntur. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein would be referred to as they are arrayed before the trial court. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that: on 15.7.1997 at about 3.00 PM, while the petitioner was traveling in lorry bearing No. AIK-3897 from Tadepalligudem to Visakapatnam with onion load, as its cleaner, lorry bearing registration No.AP-16-T- 1678 dashed it. On account of the accident the petitioner received fracture to his right leg, which ultimately resulted in amputation upto Knee. The petitioner was aged 27 years and working as Cleaner on the lorry which involved in the accident. In the entire petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.3.00 Lakhs. 3. The first respondent, owner of the lorry AIK-3897 remained ex parte. The second respondent, insurance company of Lorry No. AP-16-T-1678 filed its counter denying the averments of the petition and stated that as the accident was result of head on collusion, as the driver, owner and insurer of Lorry No.AIK-3897 are not made parties, the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties. 4. Basing on the above pleadings, the lower tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driver of the drivers of the lorries bearing registration No.AIK-3897 and AP-16-T-1678? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and against whom? iii) To what relief? 5. To substantiate his claim, the petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and got examined the Doctor as PW-2, apart from marking Ex A-1, Copy of the registered notice issued to the insurer of AIK-3897; Ex A-2 and A-3 acknowledgements; Ex A-4 – True copy of FIR in Cr.No.61 of 1997; Ex A-5 - copy of insurance Policy; Ex A-6 Medical Certificate issued by PW-2; Ex A-7 – Medical bills; Ex A-8, appointment order of the petitioner as cleaner; Ex A-9 - Certified copy of FIR; Ex A-10 - Certified copy of MVI Report; Ex A-11, Certified copy of Wound Certificate and Ex A-12 Certified copy of charge sheet. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 6. On a consideration of the above material, the tribunal below awarded compensation of Rs.2,31,447-00, with interest @ 9% per annum and costs. The petitioner being dissatisfied with the above compensation filed the present appeal. 7. A perusal of the order passed by the lower tribunal makes it crystal clear that it has taken into consideration all the aspects of case, by taking the monthly income of the deceased at that time while awarding compensation. However, the tribunal has lost sight of the fact that there is possibility of the earning capacity of the petitioner being increased in future. Therefore, keeping in view only the future earnings of the petitioner, this court is of the view that it would be just and proper to enhance the compensation by another Rs.30,000-00 to meet the ends of justice, as his right leg has been amputated upo knee. 8. Consequently, the compensation awarded by the lower court is enhanced to from Rs.2,31,447-00—to Rs.Rs.2,61,447-00. The same is rounded off to Rs.2,62,000-00. The petitioner is entitled to interest @ 6% per annum on the enhanced amount. He also entitled to proportionate costs. 9. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part, as indicated above. _______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Dated:24—11—2010. *BVS