THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY MACMA No.762 of 2019

JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the appellant-claimant, under Section

173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, aggrieved by the award dated 28-01-2019 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) in M.V.O.P.No.341 of 2013, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/-with proportionate costs and interest thereon at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.01.2010 when the appellant, along with his wife and daughter, was travelling in the auto bearing registration No.AP-01-W-3867 from Gangipelli Village towards the Sammakka Saralamma Jathara at Mancherial, at about 4:30 a.m. after crossing Rasoolpalli and reaching near a culvert at Indaram Cross Road, the driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a bullock cart going ahead of the auto, as a result of which the appellant suffered grievous injuries, such as below-left-knee injury, loss of the first four toes of his left foot (except the little toe). It is stated that the appellant was hospitalized, underwent surgery and incurred medical expenditure. The appellant filed the aforesaid O.P. against respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., the owner of the auto and the insurance company respectively, claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., the owner of the auto remained ex parte and respondent No.2 i.e., the Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the amount claimed is excessive and prayed to dismiss the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal, after conducting full-fledged trial and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, held that the appellant suffered injuries in the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the respondent No.1’s vehicle, and that respondent No.2 is the insurer under a valid policy covering third‐party risk and awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Mr. E. Kishore Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant- claimant vehemently contended that Tribunal erred in undervaluing the income of the appellant and thereby drastically reducing the compensation; even though the actual income of Rs.5,000/- per month was proved by the certificate of employment, the Tribunal has not accepted the same; and while calculating compensation, due regard must be given to the full pre-accident earnings, future prospects, multiplier applicable to his age, and all conventional heads of compensation; and as such the compensation awarded the Tribunal requires enhancement by this Court.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2-Insurance Company, submits that the Tribunal has rightly exercised its discretion to reduce the income of the appellant, on the ground of lack of corroborative evidence, and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal at Rs. 2,25,000/- is just and equitable.

8. A careful perusal of the record reveals that there is no dispute that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the auto belonging to respondent No.1 and the insurance policy of respondent No.2 was in force at the time of accident. It is also not in dispute that the appellant has suffered grievous injuries and has been certified to have permanent disability related to loss of toes of the left foot, which affects his earning capacity.

9. Coming to the question of monthly income, the appellant produced an employment certificate (Ex.A7) showing that he was working as Watchman at a monthly pay of Rs.5,000/-. Although the author of the certifica