THE HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA M.A.C.M.A No.511 of2019

JUDGMENT:

The appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). He filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 19.10.2018 passed by the Tribunal in M.V.O.P. No. 240 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,03,290/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries he sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 03.04.2016 at 3:30 PM, while he was travelling in an auto (bearing No. TS-09-UA-4709). The accident occurred due to a collision between the auto and an oncoming motorcycle, caused by the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, on the outskirts of Bujilapuram village in Mothkur Mandal, Nalgonda District. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as the claimant and the insurance company.

2. Heard Ms. Annapurna Sreeram, learned counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Kota Subba Rao, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent–insurance company. Perused the record.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant contends that the claimant was employed as the Manager of a poultry farm and was earning around Rs.20,000/- per month. She submits that the Tribunal ought to have considered his income as Rs.20,000/- per month; that the District Medical Board assessed the claimant's disability at 40%, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have granted appropriate compensation under that head; that the Tribunal awarded interest at 7% instead of 9%; that it should have awarded Rs.25,000/- towards litigation costs; that Rs.15,000/- should have been awarded towards loss of earnings instead of Rs.6,000/-; and that Rs.1,00,000/- should have been awarded towards medical expenses instead of Rs.43,290/-. She contends that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- instead of Rs.1,03,290/-.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the insurance company justifies the impugned judgment and award, contending that there is no evidence to support the claim that the claimant earned Rs.20,000/- per month. He submits that the compensation awarded under the various heads does not warrant interference.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the occurrence of the accident on 03.04.2016 at 3:30 PM due to a collision between the auto (No. TS-09-UA-4709), in which the claimant was travelling, and an oncoming motorcycle is not in dispute. 5.1 With regard to the claimant’s income, the Tribunal specifically recorded that the claimant had not produced any evidence to support his assertion that he was earning Rs.20,000/- per month as a poultry farm manager. Therefore, the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.6,000/- per month. Mere assertion that the claimant worked as a manager and earned Rs.20,000/- per month is insufficient; such a claim must be supported by cogent evidence. As there is admittedly no such evidence, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal’s assessment of income at Rs.6,000/- per month is reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

5.2 Regarding medical treatment and the expenditure incurred, the claimant produced Ex.A7—medical bills amounting to Rs.43,291/- before the Tribunal. He suffered a grievous head injury, multiple bodily injuries, a closed fracture of the right femur shaft, and a fracture of the right patella. He also suffered a permanent disability of 40%, as reflected in Ex.A5—the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board. The Tribunal awarded Rs.43,290/- towards medical expenses and extra nourishment. In view of the nature of the injuries sustained, this Court is inclined to enhance the compensation under this head to Rs.75,000/-.

5.3 PW-2, the doctor who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant (PW-1) suffered 40% di