PERIPOGU LAKSHAIAH ALIAS LATCHAIAH Vs. K RAVINDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award, dated 04.02.2003, in M.V.O.P. No. 545 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, Guntur (for short 'the Tribunal').

(2.) The Appellant, who sustained injuries in a motor accident, filed this appeal feeling dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. As the manner of the accident and the factum of negligence are not in dispute, it is not necessary to refer to the facts leading to the accident. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the Appellant was treated in Government Hospital for about two months and in a Private Nursing Home for about one month and has also suffered permanent partial disability to the extent of 25% to 30%. The plea of the Appellant that he was doing cattle business, besides attending to coolie work, was also accepted and his income was taken as Rs. 2,000/- per month. The Appellant's age was taken as 31 years and the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income at Rs. 1,02,000/-. A sum of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded towards medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- was awarded for extra nourishment, besides award of Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of income during the period of hospitalization. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs. 6,000/- towards future operation and Rs. 3,000/- towards medicines to be used in connection with such operation. Another sum of Rs. 8,000/- was awarded towards pain and suffering. In all, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,40,000/- as compensation. At the hearing, Sri T. Sricharan, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submitted that the Tribunal has wrongly taken the age of the injured as 31 years on the basis of the age mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet, while the wound certificate and case sheet maintained by the hospital mentioned his age as 30 years. He has further submitted that the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 15,000/- as medical expenses instead of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by it. The learned Counsel also submitted that the Appellant was hospitalized for a period of three months in two spells and that he was discharged from the Private Nursing Home on 13.09.2000 with a further advise to undergo a further operation. According to the learned Counsel, in view of the successive operations and his hospitalization in two hospitals with a further surgery to be performed, the Appellant could not have attended to his day-to-day work at least for a period of six months and that the Tribunal ought to have awarded compensation for loss of income for six months instead of limiting it to three months.

(3.) With reference to the first submission of the learned Counsel, generally the age mentioned by the Doctors shall be preferred to the age mentioned in the police record. The Tribunal has referred to the discrepancy in the age mentioned in two certificates and presumed that the Appellant's age would have been 31 years. In my opinion, the Tribunal ought to have relied on the age mentioned in the wound certificate and case sheet. If the Appellant's age is taken as 30 years, the multiplier '18' is applicable.