The court held that when medical evidence and disability certificates establish a specific percentage of permanent disability, the Tribunal cannot deny compensation under that head, and notional income may be fixed based on the claimant's occupation and the year of the accident.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, aggrieved by the award and decree dated 27.11.2017 passed in M.V.O.P.No.243 of 2016 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda (for short, “the Tribunal”) wherein compensation of Rs.80,305/- was awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.03.2016, at about 1.30 p.m., while the appellant-claimant was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.TS 05 EB 6025, a TSRTC bus bearing No.AP-29-Z-2459, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in grievous injuries to him. A criminal case was registered against the driver of the offending bus. Stating that at the time of the accident, the claimant was aged about 19 years and was earning his livelihood as a private tutor, the aforesaid claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending bus and awarded total compensation of Rs.80,305/-. Challenging the said award, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant contends that the Tribunal committed a grave error in not awarding compensation towards permanent disability, despite the evidence of P.W.2-Doctor and Ex.A5-disability certificate, which clearly establish that the claimant suffered 35% permanent disability. It is further contended that the amounts awarded under various heads are meagre and that the rate of interest also requires enhancement.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.2-Corporation would submit that the award passed by the Tribunal is reasonable and does not warrant interference.

5. Having considered the rival submissions and upon perusal of the entire material available on record, this Court finds that the Tribunal, while dealing with the issue relating to compensation, categorically observed that P.W.2 assessed the disability of the claimant at 35% and that there was no contra evidence adduced by the respondents to discredit the said testimony. Having recorded such a clear finding, the Tribunal was not justified in denying compensation under the head of permanent disability. The approach of the Tribunal, therefore, is unsustainable and warrants interference by this Court. Insofar as the income of the claimant is concerned, though no documentary evidence is filed, having regard to the year of accident i.e., 2016, and the avocation of the claimant as a private tutor, it would be reasonable to fix the notional monthly income at Rs.6,000/-. The claimant was aged 19 years at the time of accident and, therefore, the appropriate multiplier applicable, as per settled law, is ‘18’. Accordingly, the compensation towards permanent disability is computed as Rs.4,53,600/- (Rs. 6,000 x 12 x 18 x 35%). Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs.4,53,600/- under the head of permanent disability.

6. With regard to travelling and transport charges, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.4,000/-, which is on the lower side considering the nature of injuries and treatment and the same is enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under other heads, namely loss of earnings at Rs.10,000/-, medical expenses at Rs.14,305/-, damages to clothes at Rs.2,000/-, and pain a