Judgment:
Elipe Dharma Rao, J.
1. This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred against the Order dated 4.8.2000 in O.P. No. 530 of 1998 rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Vizainagaram, awarding Rs. 11,500/- with proportionate costs and interest to the appellant towards compensation.
2. The brief facts are as follows:
3. The first respondent is the driver- cum-owner of the scooter bearing No. AP 31D 9106. The second respondent is the insurer. On 6.11.1996, at about 9.00 a.m., the first respondent drove his scooter in a rash and negligent manner, on main road, Gajapathinagaram, and dashed against the appellant, who was on extreme left side of the road, resulting which, the appellant sustained fracture to his left hand and injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was shifted to Gajapathinagaram Government Hospital, for treatment. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 63 years and earning Rs. 100/- per day by selling chocolates and biscuits. Hence, the appellant filed O.P. No. 530 of 1998 claiming Rs. 80,000/- towards compensation, for the injuries sustained by him.
4. The first respondent filed his counter-affidavit contending that he is having valid driving licence and that the accident was not occurred due to his rash and negligent driving. The second respondent filed separate counter-affidavit denying its liability to pay the compensation.
5. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs. Al to A7 and Exs. Xl and X2 were marked. No oral and documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents.
6. Having heard both the learned Counsel and having appreciated the evidence and material available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and awarded Rs. 9,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 200/- towards transport charges and Rs. 2,300/- towards extra nourishment, in total Rs. 11,500/- and rejected the claim under the other heads. Dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant filed the present appeal.
7. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal, having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent, awarded only an amount of Rs. l1,500/- towards compensation, which is too meager. He further contends that the Tribunal failed to take into account the earnings of the appellant while determining the compensation and also failed to award the amount as claimed towards medical expenses etc.
8. Learned Counsel for the first respondent contends that the amount awarded by the Tribunal itself is excessive and exorbitant and sought to sustain the order under appeal.
9. Heard the learned Counsel on either side.
10. There is no necessity to delve into the aspect of rash and negligence on the part of the first respondent. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of the appellant herein as P.W.I, and in the absence of rebuttal evidence, particularly when the first respondent, who drove the vehicle on the fateful day in rash and negligent manner, did not enter the witness box to disprove the contentions of the appellant herein, rightly came to the conclusion that the injuries sustained by the appellant are only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent.
11. So far as inadequacy of the compensation is concerned, the appellant stated that he is earning Rs. l00/- per day by selling chocolates and biscuits and due to the fracture sustained by him, he could not carry on his business. But the appellant did not produce even a scrap of paper to show that due to the injuries sustained by him, his earning capacity was reduced. The appellant sought to rely upon Ex. A2, wound certificate and. Ex. A5, disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, Vizainagaram, which clearly show that the appellant suffered one grievous and two simple injuries and 2% disability. Taking the same into consideration, the Tribunal came to the just conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to claim any compensation under the head of permanent disability and loss of earning power and awarded Rs. 9,000/- towards pain and suffering as against Rs. l0,000/- claimed by the appellant.
12. The appellant was shifted to Government Hospital, Gajapathinagaram and from there to Government Hospital, Vizainagaram. The award was silent about the medical expenditure incurred by the appellant. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 200/- towards transport charges and Rs. 2,300/- towards extra nourishment only. Though the appellant was treated in the Government Hospital, it cannot be said that he has not incurred any amount towards medical expenses after his discharge from the hospital.
13. A perusal of Ex. A2, wound certificate, Ex. A5, Disability Certificate and Ex. Xl, case-sheet, shows that the appellant was aged about 63 years. Hence, no multiplier can be applied to determine the loss of earnings. Keeping in view the age of the appellant and the gravity of the injuries sustained by him, if an amount Rs. 10,000/-, instead of Rs. 9,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, is awarded towards pain and suffering and loss of earnings for the period in which he underwent treatment, Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses, and Rs. 200/- towards transport charges and Rs. 2,300/- towards extra nourishment, which the Tribunal already awarded, totalling Rs. 17,500/-, in my considered opinion, it would meet the ends of justice. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and in view of the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the interest awarded by the Tribunal at the rate of 12% per annum is scaled down to 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization.
14. The civil miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. No costs.