1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-claimant, challenging the order and decree dated 04-02-2015 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in O.P. No.37 of 2009, whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,15,200/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.11.2003, the appellant-claimant, a lorry-cleaner by occupation, was travelling in lorry bearing No.AP-09-W-4345 (owned by respondent No.1 herein) along with the driver of the said lorry from Chengathuru to go to L&T Cement Factory at Tadiparthy and when they reached the outskirts of Chennekothapally Village at about 10:00 pm, the driver of the said lorry, in order to avoid an oncoming car that was proceeding without headlights, rashly veered the lorry to the right. The lorry lost control and crashed into a roadside tree. As a result, the appellant suffered serious injuries, i.e., fractures of both tibia and fibula of his left leg, fracture of left ankle, fracture of right forearm (ulna), and other multiple injuries. Immediately after the accident, the appellant-claimant was treated at Government General Hospital, Anantapur and subsequently he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, where surgical treatment was performed on his left leg (external fixation). Stating that prior to the accident, the appellant was hale and healthy, engaged as lorry-cleaner and was earning a monthly income of Rs.5,000/- and on account of the accident and resultant permanent disability, he became unfit to continue his occupation, he filed the aforesaid claim petition before the Tribunal, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

3. Before the Tribunal, respondent No.1 i.e., owner of the lorry remained ex parte. Respondent No.2-insurance Company filed a counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the compensation claimed was excessive and prayed for dismissal of the claim. The Tribunal, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and awarded a sum of Rs.3,15,200/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum in favour of the appellant-claimant, payable by the respondents jointly and severally. Dissatisfied with the quantum, the appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

4. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. There is no dispute with regard to the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the lorry driver and liability.

6. So far as the assessment of quantum of compensation is concerned, on a re-appraisal of the record, it is evident that the appellant suffered serious permanent injuries (fractures of both bones of left leg, ankle, fracture of right arm, surgery, mal-union, restricted ankle mobility, limping), as evidenced by medical records and the Disability Certificate (40% disability). Further, the pre-accident occupation of the appellant-claimant was lorry-cleaner which demands physical mobility, ability to lift, walk, climb etc., but the injuries and resulting disability render him unfit for such labour anymore.

7. Having regard to the age, the permanent disability and its life-long impact, this Court is of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is inadequate and requires enhancement. Keeping in view the multiple fractures, surgery, permanent disability, loss of mobility, and long-term limitations, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards injuries (grievous injuries and simple injury) sustained by the appellant-claimant is enhanced from Rs.42,000/- (Rs.40,000 + 2,000) to Rs.1,00,000/-. The amounts granted by the Tribunal under others heads i.e., Rs.2,000/- and Rs.2,000/- towards transportation and food and extra nourishment are enhanced to Rs.10,000/- each. Further, considering the surgery, hospitalization, implant/external fixator and nursing, the amount granted by the Tribunal towards medical expenses at Rs.10,000/- requires enhancement to Rs.50,000/-. The amount granted by the Tribunal at Rs.2,59,200/- towards loss of earnings can be maintained. Keeping in view the trauma, mental and physical shock (past and future), enduring disability, restricted mobility, loss of comfort, an amount of Rs.20,000/- can be awarded towards pain and suffering. Thus, the total compensation payable to the appellant is tabulated as under:

              

               Thus, the appellant-claimant is entitled for total compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-.

8. At this stage, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submits that the appellant-claimant had claimed only a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation, and therefore, the quantum of compensation to be awarded cannot exceed the amount claimed. However, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another ((2011) 10 SCC 756) and in Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003 ACJ 12 (SC)), and considering that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation intended to protect the interest of claimants, the Courts are empowered to award just and reasonable compensation even in excess of the amount claimed. Hence, the appellant is entitled to a higher compensation than the amount originally claimed.

9. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.3,15,200/- to Rs.4,50,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. The appellant is directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. The rest of the terms and conditions imposed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.