K. NARASAIAH Vs. M. SREEDHAR REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 31.08.2005 passed in OP No.236 of 2004 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal -cum -District Judge, Nellore, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/ -, with interest at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition till realization, out of the claim of Rs.2,00,000/ -, the claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The parties hereinafter will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience. The brief facts of the case are as follows. That on 12.04.2003 the claimant and others were engaged an Auto bearing No. AP 26U 8296 to go to Vavilla village from Atmakur and while they were returning from Vavilla village to Nellore it is alleged that the lorry bearing No.AP 26 U 7225 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the Auto near Inamadugu road centre at Kovur, as a result of which the claimant and others sustained injuries. The claimant was shifted to Government Hospital. It is the case of the claimant that in spite of treatment he became permanently disabled due to fracture of D8 and D9 vertebral of spine. It is also his case that he was aged about 32 years at the time of accident and he was working as toddy tapper and earning Rs.6,500/ - per month.

(2.) THE first respondent -owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The second respondent -Insurance Company filed counter and contested the matter on various grounds. The Tribunal framed various issues. On behalf of the claimant the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and PWs.2 and 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents none were examined but the copy of insurance policy was marked as Ex.B1. On the issue of negligence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. The said finding is not in dispute in this appeal. On issue No.2, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/ - towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/ - towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/ - towards disability and Rs.5,000/ - towards loss of earnings. Thus, in all, the Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/ -. The main contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that after the accident the claimant is unable to do any work and there is total loss of earnings and the Tribunal has not considered the future loss of earnings and the functional disability sustained by the claimant. It is also his submission that the amounts awarded on other heads is also on lower side.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the Insurance Company has supported the award and submitted that the Tribunal has correctly awarded the compensation and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for any amount of compensation. In case of injuries the nature of injuries and the after effects of the injuries should be taken into consideration. Whenever any injured has sustained permanent disability, the permanent disability sustained by the injured has to be assessed having regard to the nature of duties being done by the injured prior to the date of accident. In case of labourers, artisans or any other person, they have to do hard work by using both upper and lower limbs. If any one of such limb becomes useless or if the injured is not able to use even if one hand or one leg the labourers will not be in a position to do the labour work. In such cases normally there will be total loss of earnings. Except doing some work while sitting at home they cannot do any other work. Therefore, in all the cases where there is evidence to show that the injured sustained permanent disability, such loss of functional disability has to be assessed. In a case where a person can simply sit and do work in an office in front of a computer or any other job where he need not stand or need not do any work with his legs or can do work with one hand, in such cases the loss of earnings can be very less and only notional loss of earnings may have to be assessed. Everything depends upon the nature of work done by the injured prior to the accident.