Rella Appanna vs P. Narayana Rao and Others

R. Kantha Rao, J.—This appeal is filed by the injured claimant challenging the award, dated 5th March, 2002 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Vijayanagaram in MOP No. 742 of 1999. Challenge in this appeal is to the quantum of compensation on the ground that it is grossly inadequate.

I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-claimant and the learned Counsel appearing for the third Respondent-Insurance Company.

The accident took place on 30th October, 1998 at about 6:00 p.m. while the Appellant was proceeding in an auto bearing No. AP-35-T-1965 from Nellimarla to his house at Itakarapalli Village. The accident occurred as the auto turned turtle on account or rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto.

The learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto driver and consequently held that the second Respondent-owner of the vehicle and the third Respondent-Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation which needs no interference.

As per the evidence of P.W. 1 Rella Appanna, injured, the doctor-P.W. 2 treated him in the private nursing home. According to P.W. 2, the Appellant received injury on the left forearm involving both bones, and the second injury is said to be grievous in nature i.e., the fracture of both bones of left forearm which is revealed by x-ray report. Ext. A-2, copy of OP chit indicates that the Appellant was admitted in the Government Hospital on 30th October, 1998 and was discharged on 2nd November, 1998. P.W. 2, the doctor stated that on account of fracture of left forearm, the Appellant sustained 20% disability which is partial and permanent in nature and issued Ext. A-10, Disability Certificate. The learned Tribunal is against the claim of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the Appellant has awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000/-. The order passed by the Tribunal indicates that the Tribunal only granted lumpsum amount without computing loss of earnings. The Appellant is said to be labourer and he is 20 years on the date of accident which fact is not in dispute. According to him, he was earning Rs. 70/- per day. Thus, keeping in view the accident occurred in the year 2002, his monthly income can be fixed at Rs. 1,500/- per month and his annual income comes to Rs. 1,500/- x 12=Rs. 18,000/-. The relevant multiplier to the age of the Appellant is 18. The loss of earnings comes to Rs. 18,000 x 18 x 20/100 = Rs. 64,800/-. This apart, an amount of Rs. 10,000/- can be granted to the Appellant towards pain and suffering. The amount of Rs. 1,500/- granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,500/- towards transportation and attendance in the hospital and Rs. 7,500/- towards the expenses for future operation which according to P.W. 2, the doctor is necessary, being reasonable, are not interfered with. This apart, an amount of Rs. 3,000/- can be granted to the Appellant for the simple injury sustained by him. In all, the Appellant is entitled for total compensation of Rs. 89,300/-. Therefore, the enhancement would be Rs. 89,300/- minus 35,000/- =Rs. 54,300/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

With the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.