The High Court held that the Tribunal erred in calculating the annual income of the appellant and in deducting 1/3rd from it towards personal expenses. It also held that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- for attendant charges and special diet.

JUDGMENT

Ninala Jayasurya, J. - The injured/claimant aggrieved by the order and decree dated 03.10.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.1204 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Court, Guntur filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. The appellant/injured filed the above said O.P., against the respondents seeking an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 30.8.2001. In support of his case, he examined himself as P.W.1 and the Doctor, who treated him, as P.W.2. He got marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.X1 case sheet. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company filed counter and contested the matter. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on its behalf. The Tribunal, after framing the relevant issues and considering the material on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the 1st respondent's driver. The Tribunal while taking the income of the appellant at Rs.12,000/- per annum, deducted 1/3rd towards his personal expenses and taking the disability at 50% and applicable multiplier of 16' arrived at the loss of earning capacity of the appellant as Rs.64,000/- (Rs.8,000 X 16 X 50/100). In addition to the same, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and special diet. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.79,000/- towards compensation together with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present appeal.

3. Heard Mr.Siva Rama Krishna, Advocate representing Mr.N.Subba Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the Tribunal grossly erred in taking the annual income as Rs.12,000/- and also in deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses as if it is a case of death. He submits that the Tribunal should have taken the monthly income of the appellant/injured at Rs.3,000/- and places reliance on the decision Jakkampudi Krishna Venkata Satyanarayana vs. Guttula Rama Mohan Rao, (2015) 1 AndhWR 366 (AP). While relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, the learned counsel submits that the appellant aged about 35 years is entitled to 40% of the salary towards future prospects and thus the amount of loss of dependency would work out to Rs.4,03,200/-. He further submits that the appellant is also entitled to further compensation towards special diet, attendant charges, trauma separately. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar, (2011) 1 SCC 343, he also submits that due to the accident, four limbs of the appellant were affected and therefore the appellant is entitled to reasonable amounts towards future medical expenses, loss of expectation of life etc. He further submits that though the appellant sought less amount towards compensation, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble apex Court in Nagappa vs. Gurdial Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 274 and Ramla vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2019) 2 SCC 192, the Court is empowered to grant just and reasonable compensation.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel with reference to the material on record and the judgments referred to supra. In so far as the contention regarding the income of the appellant is concerned, though the learned counsel submits that it should be taken as Rs.3,000/- per month, the Tribunal after referring to the evidence of the appellant/claimant that he is earning Rs.50 per day and used to work for 23 days in a month, took the income as Rs.1,200/- per month. Therefore the Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the monthly income of the appellant. However, the Tribunal committed an error in calculating the annual income as Rs.12,000/- instead of Rs.14,400/- and also in deducting 1/3rd from Rs.12,000/- towards