M.N. Rao, J.
1. This appeal is from the judgment of the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Adilabad, in O.P.No.402 of 1993, by which compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,33,000/- was awarded in favour of the appellant herein in respect of a Motor accident that occurred on 14-5-1993 in Yellaram village near Adilabad, which had resulted in the total severance of his right hand upto the shoulder. The appellant, an unmarried, was aged 23 years at the time of the accident. He passed Trade Certificate Examination in Electrical Branch in the month of January, 1991. He was employed as an Electrician in M/s. Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy General Engineering and Electrical Works, Palakurthi, Warangal on a monthly salary of Rs. 2,500/-. On the fateful day i.e., 14-5-1993, the appellant was proceeding to Adilabad in a APSRTC bus for the purpose of submitting the application for appointment as helper in the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. When the bus reached Yellaram village, an oil tanker bearing Registration No. AP 16-T 4176 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, bumped against the right side portion of the bus and at that time as the appellant was resting his right hand on the window seat, the hand got severed totally and fell into the cabin of the oil tanker. In respect of the accident, a case was registered by the police and the driver of the oil tanker pleaded guilty for the offence under Section 304-A IPC in CC No. 364 of 1993, for which he was convicted by the Munsif Magistrate, Luxxettipet. The appellant filed O.P. No. 402 of 1993 claiming in all a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- towards compensation under the following heads:
Transportation to Hospital - Rs. 2,000-00Extra nourishment - Rs. 10,000-00Medical & other expenses - Rs. 30,000-00Pain and suffering - Rs. 58,000-00Compensation for permanentdisability - Rs. 3,00,000-00Compensation for loss of earningpower and future losse - Rs. 2,00,000-006,00,000-00
2. The first respondent is the owner of the tanker involved in the accident and the second respondent was the Driver. The third respondent is the insurer with which the lorry was insured at the time of the accident. The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation was not impleaded as a respondent. Although the driver and owner of the oil tanker involved in the accident were made parties (respondents), both of them remained ex-parte and no evidence was adduced on their behalf. But in the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, a plea was taken that no space was given by either of the Drivers of the RTC bus and the oil tanker to allow the other vehicle to pass by.
3. The petitioner got himself examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked.
4. The learned Chairman, although there is no evidence in respect of the plea taken by the second respondent in the counter-affidavit that the Drivers of both the vehicles did not give space, recorded a finding that the accident was the result of composite negligence of the drivers of the RTC bus and the oil tanker, and as the APSRTC was not impleaded as a respondent, he was of the view that the compensation amount has to be reduced by 50%. He also recorded a finding that the drivers of both the vehicles were driving the vehicles without giving proper space for the other to pass-by. On the question of quantum of compensation, the learned Chairman awarded the following amounts:
(a) Transportation charges - Rs. 1,000-00(b) Extra nourishment - Rs. 5,000-00(c) Medical and other expenses - Rs. 10,000-00(d) Pain and suffering, loss of amenitiesof life, loss of expectation of life. - Rs. 50,000-00(e) Compensation for permanent disability - Rs. 1,00,000-00(f) Compensation for loss of earning, lossof earning capacity or both - Rs. 1,00,000-00Rs. 2,66,000-00
In view of the finding that the accident was the result of composite negligence, the learned Chairman granted only Rs. 1,33,000/- as compensation - half of Rs. 2,66,000/-. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal was brought.
5. Although the propositions of. law stated by the learned Chairman as to what constitutes contributory negligence and composite negligence are unexceptionable, we are of the view that there the is no warrant for the inference that the accident in question was the result of composite negligence and, therefore, the failure on the part of the claimant to implead the APSRTC should result in his losing half of the compensation amount. There is absolutely no evidence to support the theory of composite negligence. Even though a plea was taken by the Driver of the oil tanker that no space was given by both the Drivers, he did not go into the witness box nor anyone else was examined to prove this assertion. What is more important is that the second respondent-driver had pleaded guilty to the charge under Section 304-A IPC in CC No. 364/93 and on the basis of his admission, conviction was recorded by the criminal Court. In this fact situation, we find it difficult to hold that a case of composite negligence was made out. We must also mention that in the absence of any evidence to support what has been pleaded, it is not open to any Court or Judicial Tribunal to record a finding that what was pleaded was proved. If the finding of composite negligence, which was based on no evidence, is excluded, what follows unquestionably is that the accident was the result of the rash driving by the Driver of the oil tanker.
6. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, except in regard to sub-heads (e) and (f), in respect of the other heads under which compensation was awarded, we are inclined to agree with the learned Chairman. As regards the sub-head (e) - compensation for permanent disability - the amount awarded was Rs. 1,00,000/-. We think, the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- under this head. The evidence clearly points out that the loss of efficiency is to the extent of 90%. His right hand upto the shoulder point was totally severed and the prospect of even going in for an artificial limb is totally bleak. The permanent disability sustained by him, we have little doubt, would land him in a state of permanent psychological depression; it would be difficult for him to forget the fact that at one time he had both the arms and the traumatic experience of losing one hand in a ghastly accident would haunt the rest of his life. One more aspect which we must notice in this context is that the prospect of his getting married and leading a normal family life also has become bleak. Taking all these factors into account, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head compensation for permanent disability, we think, would be just and proper. As regards the sub- head (f) - compensation for loss of earning and loss of earning capacity - we feel that a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as against Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal would be just and proper. The claimant had lost all chances of securing employment; he is a technician and without the help of right hand, it is not possible for him to work as a technician and since he was trained only for the job of a technician it would not be possible for him to secure any job for which he was trained. It is very doubtful whether with one hand, that too the left hand, he would be in a position to take up any other profitable employment. Taking these aspects into consideration, we think, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- under the head compensation for loss of earning and loss of earning capacity is just and proper.
7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part with proportionate costs and the compensation amount is fixed at Rs. 3,66,000/- as against Rs. 1,33,000/-, with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment.