THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER M.A.C.M.A.Nos.1120 of 2007, 617 of 2013 and 3579 of 2009 COMMON JUDMENT:

M.A.C.M.A.No.1120 of 2007 is filed by Smt.R.Vani/claimant, wife of Sri R.Upender Reddy - Claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3579 of 2009, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 22.02.2007, passed in O.P.No.662 of 2004 on the file of the XIV Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for enhancement of the compensation amount. M.A.C.M.A.No.617 of 2013 is filed by Baby R.Spandana/claimant, daughter of Sri R.Upender Reddy- Claimant in M.A.C.M.A.No.3579 of 2009, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 11.01.2008, passed in O.P.No.663 of 2004 on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVIII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, for enhancement of the compensation amount. M.A.C.M.A.No.3579 of 2009 is filed by Sri R.Upender Reddy/claimant aggrieved by the award and decree dated 13.03.2009, passed in O.P.No.670 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Judge (FTC) City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for enhancement of the compensation amount.

2. Heard and perused the record.

3. The claim of the appellants/claimants is that on 30.08.2003, when the husband, wife and daughter were going on a T.V.S.Motor Cycle, the offending vehicle which is TATA Sumo, hit the motor cycle resulting in all the three receiving injuries. Accordingly, three different O.P.’s i.e., O.P.No.662 of 2004 was filed by the wife, O.P.No.663 of 2004 was filed by the daughter and O.P.No.670 of

2004 was filed by the husband.

4. Since, the three claims pertain to the very same accident, all the three appeals are heard together and disposed of by way of this Common judgment.

5. The appellants/claimants filed claim petitions before the Court below making the owner of the TATA Sumo, its insurer i.e., National Insurance Company Limited and also the insurer of the motor cycle i.e., The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as parties.

6. The trial Court found that the insurer of the TATA Sumo was liable to pay compensation, since, it was the offending vehicle and the driver of the TATA Sumo was prosecuted in a criminal case before the Court below under Section 338 of I.P.C.

7. It was not argued by the learned counsel that The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is liable. Further, as seen from the manner in which the accident has taken place, the insurer of the TATA Sumo i.e., National Insurance Company Limited is liable to pay compensation.

8. Smt.R.Vani/appellant in M.A.C.M.A.No.1120 of 2007 received the following injuries:-

i) fracture of pelvis bone; ii) fracture of clavicle and iii) right fore-arm, upto lower 1/3^rd was amputated.

The said injuries are not in dispute. Further, according to the Doctor, there was a permanent disability of 70% as mentioned in Ex.A8 – Orthopaedically Handicapped Certificate.

9. In view of the above, the compensation granted by the Court below is not adequate. Though the appellant/wife claim that she was doing embroidery work, etc., and earning money, however, the Court below did not consider the same.

10. Keeping in view that the appellant/wife is a housewife and earning money by doing embroidery work, this Court deems it appropriate to consider the income of the appellant as Rs.4,500/- per month notionally. As per the principle held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in “National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, [1(2017) 16 SCC 680]”, the claimant shall be entitled to future prospects at the rate of 40%. There is no dispute regarding the future prospects to be calculated at 40%. Hence, the monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/- (Rs.4500+Rs.1800) per month. As per her age i.e., 28 years as on the date of accident, the appropriate multiplier would be ‘17’ and the permanent disability of the claimant is taken as 70%. Under the head of loss of future earnings due to disability, the petitioner is entitled for Rs.8,99,640/-(6300x12x17x70%). The claimant is also entitled for a compensation of Rs.14,122/- towards transpo