Judgment:
1. These 16 appeals arise out of the awards passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal, Guntur, in several claim petitions by means of a common judgment, by recording common evidence, the details of which are tabulated as follows:
SI. No.Case No.
Name of appellantName ot respondentsNature of injuryAmount claimedAmount awarded C.M.A.O.P.
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)
1.162/90521/84Ithanaboyina Kondaiah
2. M.Sobbara
3. Oriental Fire &Gen.; Insurance Co. Ltd.1. Y. Peda VenkayyaInjury30,000/-15,000/-2.163190519/84Ithanaboyina China Narayans-do-Injury20,000/-6,000/-3.217/90622/84Ithanaboina Apparao-do-Injury30,000/-15.000/-4.218/90523/84Kolte Sakkubai.-do-Injury30,000/-15,000/-5.219/90524/84Sobilla Venkateswaramma-do-Injury30,000/-10,000/-6.220/90558/84Paladugu Saraswathamma-do-injury40,000/-20,000/-7.221/90526/84Maruboyina Nageswaramma-do-Injury30,000/-10,000/-8.222/90533/841. I.V. Ramanamma
2. I. Kondaiah
3. I. Venkateswarar
4. I. Govindu
-do-
Injury
40,000/-
6,000/-9.223/90534/84Balla Baburao-do-Injury50,000/-10,000/-10.224/90635/34Balla Gopalarao-do-Injury50,060/-10,000/-11.225/90550/84Nagarakanli Lakshmunudu-do-Injury50,000/-25,000/-12.226/90567/841. Mannboyina Suhbalaksbmi
2. M. Nagaiah
3. M. Marayanamma
-do-
Death
1,00,000/-
50,000/-13.236/90536/84Pasupoleti Nancharamma-do-Injury50,000/-10,000/-14.243/90530/64GgllanapalliNiimala-do-Injury30,000/-15,000/-15.244/90531/84Eluru Nagamma-do-Injury30,000/15,000/-I6.245/90532/94Pasupuleti Venkateswatarao-do-Injury30,000/-15,000/-
2. All the claims were filed under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (to be referred to as 'the Act'). Mr. Kola Subbarao, learned advocate for Respondent No.3 taking lot of pains has furnished the particulars of all the cases in a chart which is also made use of to prepare the tabular columns stated above. Having due regard to the common questions of law and facts involved in the cases they were tried together and disposed of by means of a common judgment.
3. Although each award is being decided again on its merits, it iscomplimentary that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal has not spared his pains to deal with so many matters in detail so as to render the awards ultimately.
4. The admitted and brief facts leading to the awards require an initial and brief record, the claimants and deceased Maruboyina Adiseshudu and deceased Balla Venkateswara Rao were travelling in tourist bus APG 7623 as fare-paying passengers to visit Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam. They commenced their journey on 18-8-1984. After the visit they left Tirupati in the same bus on 23-8-1984 and at about 3 a.m.while the bus was proceeding on Guntur-Vijayawada National Highway in between Nambuni Railway Station and M/s. Hemalatha Textiles Corporation, the bus dashed against a tree on the road margin due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, leading to the accident and death of two persons stated above and injuries to the passengers including the claimants. During enquiry the respondents resisted the claim whereby Respondent No.3 filed a written statement which was adopted by Respondents 1 and 2. The respondents denied the allegation of negligence of the driver of the bus in causing the accident, denied the places of the injuries suffered by the claimants and other material particulars and also denied their liability to pay the compensation. After enquiry the Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by Respondent No.2, that the claimants suffered injuries and the deceased died as a result of the accident and that they are entitled to compensation as detailed in the tabular column supra.
5. In the appeals the claimants have questioned the adequacy of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in each of the cases. Mr. Kota Subbarao, learned advocate for Respondent No.3 while supporting the awards has questioned the correctness of the decisions rendered in Q.P.No.533/84 (C.M.A.No.222/90) and O.P.No.532/84 (C.M.A.No.245/90) in view of the fact that the injured claimants died during the pendency of the proceedings wherein the causes of action ought to have been lost not surviving upon the legal representatives, but still the Tribunal passing the awards in favour of the legal representatives. Since the legal contention as above was not raised before the Tribunal and since the Supreme Court in Sivammal v, M.D. Pandyan Roadways, 1985 ACJ 75 has already held the pain and suffering of the deceased as one of the ground for compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives, such acontention does not deserve to be considered or accepted. Therefore, we are confronted with the only question in each of the cases whether the quantum of compensation awarded in each of them is not adequate and it requires escalation.
6. For the sake of convenience all the injury claim cases will be taken up together and the death case will be dealt with separately.
7. O.P.No.521/84 which is the subject-matter of C.M.A.No. 162/90 is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 116 of the judgment. PW8 is the claimant and PW25 is the Doctor who examined and treated him and Ex.A2 is said to be the wound certificate, and Ex,A62 is the case-sheet. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the claimant suffered injuries to his legs and fracture to his pelvic bone. He was treated in the Government Hospital at Guntur for ten days and that he sustained permanent disability of 10%. Rs.5,000/- each were awarded on the three heads viz., pain and suffering, permanent partial disability and loss of earning power. Unfortunately neither the testimony of the Doctor coincides with such a finding nor the records bear out such an injury was suffered by the claimant. PW25 does not even refer to the claimant Ilhanaboyina Kondaiah as the person who was examined by him to find the injuries or the disability. Neither Ex.A2 nor Ex.A62 refer to the claimant Jthanoboyina Kondaiah, Ex.A62 refers to the claimant Gopalarao. It is surprising that even the learned advocate for the appellant has not verified from record to place the facts before this Court correctly and properly. Strictly speaking the award in this case ought to have been set aside on merits, but since even the Insurer-Respondent No.3 has not cared to verify from the records that such an award could have been passed, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the award. At the same time the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. O.P.No.519/84 which is the subject-matter of C.M.A.No. 163/90 hasbeen dealt with by the Tribunal in para 128 of the judgment. PW7 is the claimant. PWs.27 and 28 are the Doctors who examined and treated him. It is established from the evidence that the claimant suffered injuries on his legs and fracture of 6th, 7th and 8th ribs with no permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/- towards medical expenses, in all Rs.6,.000/-. Neither the means nor the method of assessing the compensation is scientific or legal. The fracture to three ribs putting the claimant to shock, pain and loss of amenities at the time of accident and thereafter have been ignored. Rs.1,500/- to cover such an item is reasonable. Although the laceration is a minor injury, having due regard to the pain, Rs.2,000/- should be awarded. The comparable cases awarding compensation to ribs are the following :
Tejinder Singh Gujral v. Inderjit Singh, 1988 ACJ 407; Premchand Jain v, Dev Koran, 1986 ACJ 307; M. Subratnanya Bhat v. Govindaraj, : AIR1979Kant114 , Gurdev Kaur v. Rashbehari Das, 1979 ACJ 304; Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. Satmder, 1984 ACJ 316.
9. Such precedents have awarded Rs.3,0007- to Rs.5,000/' for fracture of a rib. Thus Rs. 10,0007- are to be awarded for the fracture of three ribs in this case. Such injuries require at least 2 or 3 months to be cured. It is improper to presume that no amount will be spent for medical expenses for such injuries, just because the treatment will be in a Government Hospital. The inexplainable incidental expenses including the medical expenses are to be reimbursed. In the absence of documentary evidence Rs.1,500/- appears to be sufficient. The claimant was an agricultural labourer and presuming that his wages were Rs.10/- to Rs.20/- per diem and presuming that he was out of employment for 3 or 4 months, a fixed sum of Rs,2,000/- are to be awarded as loss of income, as a whole. Thus taking the items of compensation as above it would come upto Rs.17,000/-. Thus the award inthis case requires to be modified by enhancing the compensation amount.
10. O.P.No.522/84 is the subject-matter of C.M.A.No.217/90. The claimant Jthanaboiw Apparao is PW9. He was aged 30 years at the time of accident. He was examined and treated by the Doctor PW25, Ex.Al being the case-sheet. It is established from the evidence that he suffered fracture of acetabulum bone and dislocation of left hip joint and he was treated from the date of the accident till 6-9-1984 and he was advised rest for one month. The matter is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 115 of its judgment. The Doctor has also opined that there is permanent disability of 20% to the claimant. The Tribunal awarded a global sum of Rs.15,000/- byway of compensation in this case. Such a method cannot be commended. The first item of compensation as above for pain and suffering where the victim suffers serious injuries including the fracture ought to have been considered. In this case it should be Rs. 1,500/-. In the comparable case reported in P.R. Velayitdhanv. R.P. Khosla, 1989 ACJ 658, such an injury to a retired High Court Judge leading to permanent disability of 40% with physical impairment and continue to suffer pain during the remaining span of life resulted in the total award of Rs. 1,06,000/- The case is taken aid of only to point out of such an injury the general damages should be on the higher side. In this case for fracture of acetabulum bone and dislocation of left hip joint, altogether the compensation should be Rs.20,000/- For the same reasons stated above Rs. 1,500/- towards medical expenses ought to be awarded. The claimant being an agricultural labourer earning Rs.20/- per diem and as per the finding that the disability of 20% affecting his functional competence should give him some amount towards loss of income, which in this case cannot but be a fixed sum as there is no explanation by the Doctor that such a disability will come in the way of the normal functioning of the claimant, Rs.2,000/- would suffice for such an item. As a whole the total compensation in this case ought to be Rs.25,000/- andthus the award in this case requires to be modified to enhance the compensation.
11. O.P.No.523/84 is the subject-matter of C.M.A.No.218/1990, One Saklaibai is the claimant, in this case who was examined as PW4 and she was 47 years old at the time of the accident. PW25 is the Doctor who treated her and Ex.A65 is the case-sheet. It is established that the claimant suffered dislocation of right hip joint and suffered 25% disability. This case is almost similar to the previous case C.M.A.No.217/90, except the injury being only the dislocation of the right hip joint without any other fracture. For the same reasons Rs.25,000/- are to be awarded in this case also and the award in this case requires to be modified to enhance the compensation.
12. C.M.A.No.219/90 being the next case covers the claim in O.P.No.524/1984, The claimant is one S. Venkataswaramma, aged about 35 years. She was examined as PW2. PW24 is the Doctor who examined her and treated her. Exs.A47 and A48 are the X-rays taken of her. The evidence in the case established that she suffered fracture of radius of ulna in the right fore-arm. The matter is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 125 of the judgment. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.5,000/- for shock and mental agony and as a whole only Rs. 10,000/-. For the same reasons as stated above Rs.2,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering and loss of amenities has to be awarded, in addition to Rs.1,5000/-towards medical and incidental expenses and Rs,2,000/- towards loss of income. The comparable case is Gyam Prakash Bhargava v. Baboo lal and another, 1985 ACJ 661 where Rs.40,000/- were awarded in similar situations, but having due regard to the facts and circumstances of that case, there is no permanent disability in this case. Therefore, Rs.15,000/- has to be awarded for the fracture in question; as a whole the total compensation should be Rs.20,500/-.
13. Now we go to C.M.A.No.220/90 which covers the subject-matter of O.P.No.558/84. The claimant in this case is oneP. Saraswathamma, aged about 50. She was examined as PW17. PW25 is the Doctor, who examined and treated her and Ex.A6 is the O.P. Chit and Ex.A59 is the case-sheet. The evidence disclosed that the claimant suffered fracture of both bones of left leg viz., tibia and fabula and fracture of both bones of right fore-arm. Para 113 in the judgment deals with this case. It is established that the claimant has suffered 25% disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and for mental shock and agony; Rs.5,000/-towards partial permanent disability and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of her earning power, in all Rs.20,000/- For the reasons stated above by applying the correct method of assessment of compensation, the award requires reconsideration. For mental shock and agony in a case like this Rs.5,000/-should be awarded. The Supreme Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Sudhakar, 1977 ACJ 290 awarded Rs.20,000/- forthe fracture of tibia and fabula of the leg in an accident of pre-1970. Having due regard to the passage of time the general damages of Rs.20,000/-awarded for a pre-1970 accident should be atleast escalated to half, if not doubled or tribled, Rs.30,000/- ought to be the proper compensation for the accident in question regarding the said fracture. In C.M.A.No.219/90 for the fracture of right ulna in the fore-arm Rs.15,000/- have been awarded towards general damages and we must repeat it in this case also. Rs.5,000/-tovvards medical and incidental expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income also have to be awarded having due regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, wherein the claimant was to be treated for atleast four months to unite the bone and also to make it viable by physiotherapy treatment inspite of it resulting permanent disability of 25%. The claimant is an agricultural labourer said to be earning Rs.10/- to Rs.15/- per diem as per the finding. Thus strictly speaking thecompensation in this case as above would have accelerated upto Rs.65,000/- whereas only Rs.40,000/- are claimed. The learned Counsel Ms. Kavilha, for the claimants had contended that in view of the pronouncement of this Court's judgment in New India Assurance Company v. G. Lakshtni, 1995 (l)ALT 107, the just compensation to which the claimant is entitled may be awarded. Mr. Kota Subbarao, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent has contended that although such a pronouncement of this Court supports the contention of the appellant! In view of the question whether such a plea can be accepted without the amendment of the claim was not considered in the said ruling and also in view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in 1982 Unreported Judgments of Supreme Court, 832(11) such a plea cannot be accepted. A similar question came for consideration before this Court in C.M.A.No.643 of 1990 and batch. Therein it has been clarified that although in a given case such a claim can be enhanced in view of the determination of the compensation by the Tribunal should be just, it has been held that such a question was per incurrium in the pronouncement and without the amendment of the enhanced claim such a claim cannot be granted either by the Tribunal or the Appellate Court. Apart from that, in view of the Supreme Court case in 1982 unreported Judgments of Supreme Court, 832, depended upon by Mr. Kota Subbarao, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent but also in a subsequent decision in Anandkumar Jain v. Union of India, having allowed such a claim only after amendment after giving opportunity to the insurer and the respondents to file a written statement and remanding the matter, the above view and the contention of the learned advocate Sri Kota Subbarao should be accepted as correct. So far no steps are taken either to amend the claim in this case or to remand the matter for that purpose. Therefore such a plea taken cannot be accepted. However, the award requires modification by enhancing the compensation to Rs.40,000/- which is claimed.
14. C.M.A.No.221/90 is the next case concerning O.P.No.526/84, the name of the claimant therein being one M. Nageswaramma, aged 24 years at the relevant time and examined as PW3 and treated by the Doctor PW24. It is dealt with in para 121 ofthe judgment of the Tribunal. It is only established that she suffered a lacerated injury and nothing more than that. For one lacerated injury compensation of Rs.1,000/- appears to be more than sufficient. Therefore there is no need to interfere with the award in this case and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
15. The next case is of one/. Gopaiah, the claimant in O.P.No.533/84 the subject-matter of C.m.a.nO. 222/90 which is dealt with by the Tribunal in para 131 of its Judgment. He died during the pendency of the proceedings. He was examined as PW18. PW28 is the Doctor who examined and treated him. Exs.A8 and A9 are the medical documents supporting the case of the claimant about the injuries suffered by him. It is disclosed from the evidence that she suffered fracture of 7th, 8th and 9th ribs on the left side. In addition thereto there was a suture on his left leg. There was no permanent disability as per the medical evidence. Rs.5,000/- were awarded towards the pain and suffering and Rs.1,000/-towards medical expenses. The case involving the fracture of three ribs as in the similar cases stated above, this is to be awarded Rs.1,500/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards fracture of three ribs and Rs.1,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income as a whole and thus the total of Rs.15,000/-. The award thus requires to be modified to escalate the compensation to Rs. 15,000/- from Rs.6,000/-.
16. C.M.A.No.223/90 is the next case concerning O.P.No.534/84 the claimant being one Ballet Baburao, aged 25 years at the time of the accident. He was examined as PW15. He was a labourer earning Rs.10/-per diem or Rs.300/- per mensem. PW30 is the Doctor who examined him. Exs.A40,A41 and A45 are the medical documents in the case. The Tribunal has found from the evidence that the claimant suffered intra abdominal injury which required an operation during the treatment leading to no permanent disability. Even adopting the same method of assessment of compensation as above, Rs. 1000/- towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- for injury; Rs.1000/- for medical expenses and Rs.1000/- for loss of income, total upto Rs.13,000/- can be awarded. The amount awarded was Rs. 10,000/- and the difference between the awardable and awarded amount is too small. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the award.
17. CMA No.224/90 concerns with OP No.535/84 and the claimant is Balla Gopalarao. He was aged 38 years and was examined as PW19 and the Doctor who examined him is PW23 and para 121 of the judgment of the Tribunal deals with the matter. It is found that the claimant sustained fracture of right collar bone and fracture of right metacarpal bone leading to no permanent disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.10,000/- as a whole without adopting the scientific method of assessment of compensation as stated above. For shock, pain and suffering Rs.2000/- can be awarded. The comparable cases have awarded at Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- for the fracture of clavicle bone leading to no disability. They are Allah Bakshas v. Dhirendranath Panda, 1983 ACJ 650 and Pushpa Thakitr v. Union of India, 1984 ACJ 559. Having due regard to the date of accident in those rulings and the date of accident in the present case, Rs.10,000/-are awarded for fracture of clavicle bone. For fracture of metacorpal bone also similar amount can be awarded. For medical and incidental expenses Rs.2000/- and for loss of income Rs.2000/- can also be awarded; the total compensation being Rs.26,000/-. The award thus deserves to be modified from Rs.10,000/-to Rs.26,000/-
18. CMA No.225/90 covers OP No.550/84. The claimant therein by nameNagarakanti Lakshmudu, aged 55 years, a cobbler earning Rs.25/- per diem. PW25 is the Doctor who examined him and Ex.A12 is the X-ray and from the medical evidence it is disclosed that he suffered fracture of tibia and fabula of the right leg and fracture in the right arm leading to 40% disability. The Tribunal dealt with the matter in para 112 of the judgment. The Tribunal awarded Rs.5000/- each for pain and suffering, shock and mental agony i.e., Rs.10,000/-Rs.10,000/- towards partial and permanent disability; Rs.5000/- towards future earnings and income, the total compensation being Rs.25,000/- on a reconsideration of the matter it is found that the claimant suffered with multiple fractures of both upper and lower limbs and immobalised atleast for two months and suffered the stiffness of the limbs during one or two months thereafter. The physiotherapy treatment would normalise the functions of the limbs. As already pointed out for fracture of tibia and fabula leading to disability, the Supreme Court and the High Courts have awarded Rs.20,000/- for the pre-1970 accident and in a similar case already Rs.30,000/- were awarded. Similarly for fracture of right arm Rs.25,000/- should be awarded. Rs.5,000/-towards medical and incidental expenses in such a case and Rs.5,000/- towards a loss of income should also be awarded. But the claimant has only claimed Rs.50,000/- and for the same reasons stated above, it cannot be escalated, however the award requires modification to enhance the compensation from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.50,000/-.
19. Among the injury cases C.M.A.No.238/90 is the case which covers O.P.No.536/84. The claimant is one Pasuptileti Nancharamma. She was examined as PW13. The matter was dealt in para 114 of the judgment by the Tribunal. PW30 is the Doctor who examined and treated her. Ex.A60 is the case-sheet. She was treated from the date of the accident till 1-9-1984. As per the evidence the claimant suffered fracture of left iliac bone and pubis region of the same. She was advised bed rest for three months. No permanentdisability is suggested or established. It was found that the claimant suffered head injury leading to slur in speech. PW13 also deposed to this. In addition thereto she suffered fracture of right clavicle bone and fracture of 10th and 11th left ribs and she was treated till 4-9-1984. The Tribunal held that slur in the speech is not an obstacle for earning as a coolie and in view of there being no permanent disability Rs.10,000/- were awarded towards pain and suffering due to the head injury and the fracture sustained by her and also for mental agony and as a whole not more than Rs.10,000/-. This Court after examining the materials on record feels that the award is not only questionable but also the mode of assessment of compensation is arbitrary and against the evidence in the case. The head injury has actually left permanent disability viz. slur in the speech. The Tribunal's discriminatory approach of a labourer having no consequences of slurring of speech is against the judicial dealing of the human suffering. The speech is not meant only for privileged classes like educated etc. Speech is one of the main faculties of human being in the day to day life both for conversation and for communication. Only certain professionals may make use of the rhetoric in oratorology for profession which is being stated as selling the words. A labourer who is not expected to sell the words cannot be said to be not necessarily facultied with such power of speech. Oratarology is not the asset of few in the society. That enhances the relationship of an individual with others, social pleasure and personal pleasure also. A head injury leading to the disability in slur in the speech is being treated as a serious injury is disability to award compensation. Even for a simple head injury Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- are to be awarded, (vide Allah Baksha 's case (supra). Head injury affecting loss of smell and taste have been compensated to the extent of Rs.30,000/- in Mohinder Gupta v. Major Singh, 1983 ACJ 760. Multiple head injury leading to slur in the speech etc. were compensated to the extent of Rs.40,000/- towards the generaldamages in Oriental Fire and General Insurance v. Kewal Kumar, 1983 ACJ 497. The loss of power of speech is also sufficient disability. Therefore, for the head injury in this case leading to slur of speech Rs.20,000/-has to be awarded by way of general damages. For fracture of clavicle bone as has been dealt with in one of the cases above, Rs.10,000/- are to be awarded in this case also. Similarly for the fracture of two ribs in this case taking the guidelines from the comparable cases stated above, Rs.6,000/-are to be awarded. For medical and incidental expenses Rs.3,500/- would be the lowest sum awardable in this case. With her avocation as labourer and income as above, the loss of income to her cannot be less than Rs.5,000/- as a whole. Thus in this case the total amount awardable ought to have been Rs.44,500/- The award thus requires to be modified to enhance the compensation accordingly.
20. C.M.A.No.243/90 is the case to deal with concerning O.P.No.530/84. Gollanapally Nirmala, aged 35 years, is the claimant. She was examined as PW12 and PW25 is the Doctor who examined and treated her. The matter is dealt with in para 120 of the judgment of the Tribunal. It is established therein that the claimant suffered fracture of left iliac bone in addition to pubis. The treatment was upto 1-9-1994 requiring bed rest for three months. Ex.A60 is the case-sheet. The disability is fixed at 10%. Rs.5,000/- is to be awarded for pain and suffering and loss of earning power by adopting the proper method stated above, Rs.25,000/- towards partial disability, Rs.3,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income and in all Rs.35,000/-.But it should be restricted to Rs.30,000/- as the claimant claimed only Rs,30,000/-. The award thus requires modification.
21. C.M.A.No.244/90 relates to O.P.No.531/84 concerning the claimant Ehint Nagamtna, who was aged 20 years at the time of the accident. She was a labourer earning Rs. 10/- per diem. She was examinedas PW21. PW25 is the Doctor who treated and examined her. The matter is dealt with in para 119 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The evidence established that she has suffered compound fracture of right leg leading to permanent disability of 15%. Ex.A64 is the case-sheet. The tribunal without reference to the scientific method of assessment of compensation, awarded in all Rs.15,000/- to cover the three items of damages viz. pain and suffering, permanent partial disability and loss of earning power. Adopting the principles as stated above Rs.5,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.30,000/- towards injuries and disability, Rs.3,500/- towards medical and incidental expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards loss of income were to be awarded, in all Rs.43,500/-. Since the claimant has claimed only Rs.30,000/-, the award of compensation is restricted to Rs.30,000/- only.
22. The last injury case is C.M.A.No.245/90 concerning O.P.No.532/84. Therein the claimant is one Pasupuleti Venkdteswara Rao. He was aged 40 years and is an agricultural labourer earning Rs.20/- per diem. PW25 is the Doctor who examined and treated him. The matter is dealt with in para 118 of the judgment of the Tribunal. It is disclosed that there was fracture of left knee joint (patella bone). He was treated till 29-8-1984. The disability assessed is 25%. As in other cases the Tribunal awarded Rs.5,000/- each for the three heads of damages viz., 15.000/-arbitrarily. There are two fractures leading to disability in this case. Adopting the principles stated above, Rs.5,000/- towards shock, pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- for fracture of patela bone, Rs.5,000/- for fracture of left knee joint, Rs.2,000/-towards medical and incidental expenses and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income would justify the claim. The total comes to Rs.24,000/-. The award requires to be modified accordingly.
23. Now we are taking up the death case i.e., C.M.A.No.226/90 concerning O.P.No.567/84 which is dealt with inpara 111 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The legal representatives are the wife and children of the deceased M. Adishesu. He was aged 22 years, when the incident occurred and when he died. He was a labourer earning Rs.15/- per diem or Rs.450/- per mensem. The Tribunal fixed at Rs. 100/- per mensem towards the income of the deceased and computed at Rs.1,200/- per annum and with this multiplicand and adopting the multiplier of 15, fixed the loss of dependency to the claimants and awarded Rs.60,000/-as a whole. The Tribunal appears to have not applied the correct principle of assessment of compensation in a death case, as has been settled in Susatnma Thomas's case, 1994 SC (Cri.) 335. The incomeftf the deceased is taken on a lower side inspite of the positive evidence that the income of the deceased was Rs. 10/- to Rs. 15/- per diem. A labourer earning Rs.15/- per diem is neither strang3 nor excessive. That would be Rs.450/-per mensem. Deducting Rs.150/- towards his personal expenses, the loss of his contribution to the family ought to have been Rs.3,600/- per annum. The age of the deceased was 22. The multiplier ought to have been 10 as has been held in Susatnma Thomas's case, (supra). The loss of dependency thus ought to have been Rs.57,600/-. Adding Rs.10,000/- towards loss of expectation of life and Rs.15,000/-towards loss of consortium, the claimant No.l being an young widow, Rs.3,000/-towards incidental expenses of transporting the dead-body etc. the total compensation in this case ought to have been Rs.85,600/-. The amount awarded was Rs.60,000/- and it requires to be accelerated to Rs.80,000/-. As rightly pointed out by Mr. Kota Subbarao, the learned advocate for the 3rd respondent, the limit of liability of Respondent No.3 would be upto Rs.50,000/- by virtue of Section 95(2)(ib) of the Act. The other respondents are bound to pay the entire amount with joint and several liability along with the 3rd respondent.
24. In the result of CMA.Nos. 162/90, 221/90 and 223/90 are dismissed andC.MA.Nos.163/90,217/90,218/90,219/90,220/ 90, 222/90, 224/90, 225/90, 226/90, 238/90, 243/90, 244/90 and 245/90 are allowed as indicated above.
25. In C.M.A.No.163/90, the claimant shall be entitled to recover by way of compensation Rs.17,000/-; in C.M.A.No.217/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.25,000/-; in C.M.A.No.218/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.25,000/-; in C.M.A.No.219/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.20,500/-; in C.M.A.No.220/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.40,000/-; in C.M.A.No.222/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.15,000/-; in C.M.A.No.224/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.26,000/-; in C.M.A.No.225/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.50,000/-; in C.M.A.No.226/90 the claimants shall be entitled to recover Rs.80,000/-; in C.M.A.No.238/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.44,500/-; in C.M.A.No.243/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.30,000/-; in C.M.A.No.244/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.30,000; and in C.M.A.No.245/90 the claimant shall be entitled to recover Rs.24,000/-; with a simple interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petitions till date of payment. Under the peculiar circumstances of the cases, there will be no order as to costs.
26. In all the cases the liability of the respondents shall be joint and several whhout any limit, except in C.M.ANo.226/90 the limit of liability of Respondent No.3 shall be restricted to Rs.50,000/- and the remaining Respondents 1 and 2 to pay the entire amount with joint and several liability along with Respondent No.3.