B. Chandra Kumar, J.@mdashThis appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of compensation challenging the award dated 05.08.2005 passed in O.P. No. 126 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short ''the Tribunal'').
2. The parties hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On 06.01.2003 at about 06.00 AM, the claimant and others were travelling in an auto bearing No. AP-26-11-5711. It appears that the auto dashed against the cycle and the auto turned turtle. The person riding the cycle and the claimant and others who were travelling in the auto sustained injuries and they were shifted to Jaya Bharat Hospital, Nellore. The claimant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. His case is that he sustained permanent disability.
4. The 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance Company contested the matter on various grounds.
5. The Tribunal framed the following issues:
1) Whether the accident that occurred on 06.01.2003 at about 06.00 hours near Podalakur road, opposite Z.P. High School, Nellore in which the petitioner sustained injuries was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP-26-U-5711?
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, if so to what amount?
3) To what relief?
6. The Tribunal has passed common order in this O.P. and other O.P.s., in which P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined on behalf of claimants and Exs. A1 to A21 were marked. None were examined on behalf of the respondents, but Ex. B1, policy was marked.
7. The Tribunal on assessment of evidence came to the conclusion that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto, this finding is not in dispute in this appeal.
8. As seen from the evidence, it is the case of the claimant that he was admitted in Java Bharat Hospital, Nellore. He was treated as inpatient. Ex. A17 is the wound certificate issued by Jaya Bharat Hospital which discloses that the claimant sustained 6 injuries out of which injury No. 1 is grievous and other injuries are simple in nature. Ex. A18 is the medical bills for Rs. 390/- issued by Jaya Bharat Hospital. Ex. A21 is the X-ray shows that the claimant sustained fracture. The claimant also filed Ex. A19 prescription of Dr. Raj Kumar of Atmakur. The lower Court did not believe Ex. A19 on the ground that the claimant did not take treatment in Atmakur. It appears that the Tribunal had given valid reasons for not accepting Ex. A19; there is no need to disturb the finding of the Tribunal with regard to Ex. A19. The claimant also produced Ex. A20-disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, DSR Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore which shows that he sustained 20% disability. However, the lower Court did not accept the same on the ground that the Doctor who issued the certificate is not examined. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 390/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 3,000/- towards transport charges, extra nourishment, attendant charges and damage to clothing, Rs. 2,500/- towards loss of past earnings. The claimant''s further case is that he was aged about 36 years and working as electrician and earning Rs. 4,000/- per month prior to the accident. His case is that he is unable to sit and stand as a result of disability sustained by him. He denied the suggestion that he has not sustained any disability and he is attending his regular duties.
9. Ex. A20 is the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, DSR Government Headquarters Hospital, Nellore. When the claimant has filed disability certificate issued by the Medical Board of Government Hospital, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same on the ground that the Doctor who issued the said certificate is not examined. It may not be possible for the injured person to examine the doctors who issued the wound certificate for various reasons. The Doctor may not be available by the time the trial commences in the case. The Doctor may be transferred to some other place or he may not be available in the country. If at all the Tribunal is not accepting the disability certificate, the Tribunal may suo moto summon the Doctor or the relevant records from the Hospital. What has to be seen is whether the injured has sustained any disability or not, whether that disability resulted in any functional disability. The Doctor should examine whether there is proper union of bones or whether there is non-union or mal-union of bones. Therefore, if the disability certificate is based on material then such disability certificate should not be disbelieved. In this case, the claimant had obtained the disability certificate from the Government Hospital, Nellore. The competent medical board seems to have issued the certificate. When a competent medical board had issued the disability certificate, the Tribunal ought not to have disbelieved the same. Merely because the Doctor is not examined that cannot be a ground to disbelieve the disability certificate particularly when it is issued by the competent medical board. Therefore, I held that the claimant had sustained 20% disability. Accordingly, loss of earnings can be taken at 20%.
10. The claimant submitted that he was working as electrician and earnings Rs. 4,000/- per month. There is nothing to disbelieve the same on this aspect. There may be addition to his income in future. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider just and reasonable to take the income of the claimant at Rs. 5,000/- per month. Therefore, the net loss of earnings would come to Rs. 1,000/- i.e., 20% of the income of the claimant. The appropriate multiplier is ''15''. The total loss of earnings comes to Rs. 1,000 x 12 x 15 = Rs. 1,80,000/-. I also consider just and reasonable to award an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of earnings for the period of treatment, Rs. 1,000/- towards transport charges, Rs. 2,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs. 2,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of amenities of life, loss of expectation of life and other miscellaneous expenses. Thus, the total compensation comes to Rs. 2,10,000/-.
11. In view of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in
12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum. The claimant has to pay deficit Court fee before drafting the decree. No costs.
13. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.
