MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THE appellant is the claimant in MAOP No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam. His case is that he is a resident of Karlam village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. On 21-9-1987, he was returning from the sea after conducting fishing operations in order to go to his village. A lorry, bearing No. APH 6975, driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed without blowing the horn, and dashed against the petitioner at the Coast Junction near Ranastalam Police Station around 2-30 P. M. Due to the said accident, he lost both his legs. He was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam, for treatment land amputation of his legs. He claimed a total compensation of rupees two lakhs under various heads, namely, (1) transportation to the hospital and medicines: Rs. 10,000/-; (2) Compensation for pain and suffering: Rs. 10,000/-; (3) Compensation for disfigurement: Rs. 5,000/-; (4) Compensation for loss of earnings: Rs. 1, 25,000/-; and (5) Compensation for loss of amenities: rs. 50,000/ -. The case of the appellant is that he is a fisherman and was eking out his livelihood on account of selling the fish and was earning Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- per day.

( 2 ) BEFORE the lower Court, the respondents contested the matter contending that the appellant is not entitled to claim the compensation. They further contended that the accident was not due to rashness or negligence on the part of the first respondent.

( 3 ) IN support of the claim, the appellant examined himself as P. W. I and one Dr. M. Ambedkar, as P. W. 2, and got marked the exhibits, A-1 to A - 23. In so far as respondents are concerned, no witness was examined and no document was marked.

( 4 ) THE third respondent had taken a specific plea in the counter that its liability is only rupees fifty thousand, in terms of the policy, and, therefore, , prayed the lower Court to fix it accordingly in the event the Court awards compensation. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court granted a total compensation of rupees seventy thousand. Out of rupees seventy thousand, the lower Court directed the third respondent-insurance company to pay an amount of rupees fifty thousand only in terms of the policy and directed the second respondent to pay the other amount of rupees twenty thousand. Interest was fixed at 9% to be paid from the filing of the petition.

( 5 ) AS against the said order, the matter has been carried to this Court. Shri K. S. Mallikarjuna Rao, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, says that though the appellant has proved beyond reasonable doubt before the Court below that his disability is total the lower Court has not granted the amount as claimed. Shri Mallikarjuna Rao further contends that the lower Court is wrong in directing the 3rd respondent to pay only rupees fifty thousand. Such direction is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivasan vs. Premier Insurance Company Limited. It is further contended that the lower Court ought to have allowed the amount claimed under the heads, loss of Amenities , medical expenses and pain and suffering . It is, therefore, strenuously contended that the order of the lower Court cannot be sustained and the compensation claimed has to be allowed in toto.

( 6 ) TO meet these arguments, Shri B. Viswanatha Reddy, representing the tod respondent, contends that the lower Court has taken the totality of the circumstances and has reasonably granted an amount of rupees seventy thousand. Therefore, mere is no illegality in such direction.

( 7 ) I have heard the Counsel at length. The fact of the accident taking place on 21-9-1987 is not disputed. The disputed areas, according to the submissions of the Counsel, is granting compensation under the heads loss of amenities , medical expenditure and pain and suffering and the liability to be fixed on the third respondent. In so far as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document