JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the claimant aggrieved by the award dated 26.10.2009 in O.P.No.98 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District and Sessions (FTC), Mahabubnagar.

2. Heard Mr. V. Raghunath, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and Mr. V. Venkatarami Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent/Insurance company, perused the entire material on record.

3. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and the Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs.1,49,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.

4. The case of the claimant is that as on the date of the accident, he was working as Sales Representative in a Cool Drinks Shop and earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. On 02.10.2002, while the claimant and his friend were proceeding to Hanwada Village on a Scooter, near Electricity Office at Hanwada, one Auto driven by its driver at high speed in a rash and negligent manner came in opposite direction and hit against the Scooter, as a result of which, the claimant and his friend fell down and they received multiple injuries. Immediately, the claimant was shifted to Government Hospital, Mahabubnagar for treatment and from there, he was referred to NIMS, Hyderabad and he incurred an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards treatment. He also spent amounts towards attendant charges, food and nutrition charges and took rest for more than two months. Because of the disability sustained, he is unable to do work as he used to do earlier.

5. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the claimant as Rs.5,000/- per month and also ought to have granted interest @ 6% per annum. It is further submitted that the amounts granted under the other heads are also very meagre.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when there was no evidence in support of the claim that the claimant was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month, the Tribunal has rightly taken the income as Rs.2,000/- per month. It is submitted that as per the evidence available on record, the Tribunal as rightly granted compensation of Rs.1,49,000/-.

7. As per the case of claimant, he was earning an amount of Rs.5,000/- per month. No doubt, there is no evidence adduced before the Tribunal to prove the same. Though there is no evidence adduced by the claimant in support of the same, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ramachandrappa Vs. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance1, where the monthly income of the daily wage labourer is considered at Rs.4,500/- without there being any evidence, this Court is inclined to take the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.4,500/-. Admittedly, the claimant has taken four months rest and as his income is taken as Rs.4,500/- per month, he is entitled for Rs.18,000/- (Rs.4,500X4) under the head of loss of income.

8. Then, coming to the disability sustained by the claimant, the Medical Board has issued the certificate. As it was elicited from the evidence of Doctor that the disability of the claimant will not become an obstacle for the business of the

1 (2011) 13 SCC 236 petitioner, the Tribunal has not granted compensation under the head of disability and this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said finding.

9. There is no dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant. As per the wound certificate/Ex.A3, the claimant has sustained three grievous injuries and six simple injuries. For three grievous injuries, he is entitled an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000X3) and for six simple injuries, he is entitled for Rs.30,000/- (Rs.5,000X6).

10. Basing on the evidence available on record, the Tribunal has granted an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards medical expenditure and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering and this court is not inclined to interfere with the said findings.

11. For loss of amenities, the Tribunal has granted only an amount of Rs.1