JUDGMENT
G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.
1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellants, who are respondents in MATOP No. 482 of 1988, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, challenging the order dt.30-3-1990 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Khammam, awarding a total compensation of Rs. 5,30,856 in favour of the respondent herein (claim petitioner) together with interest thereon at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and also awarding proportionate costs of Rs. 14,430/-.
2. Before entering into a debate on the controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation payable to the claimant, it is necessary to refer to the facts of the case to high light the issue on hand. On 30-3-1988 the claim-petitioner, in the course of his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles, had gone to Chintoor and was standing on the extreme left side of the road at the bus stop at about 10-30 a.m. At that time a van, driven by respondent No. 3 (appellant No. 3 herein), came in a very rash and negligent manner and bit the claim petitioner and four others as a result of which the petitioner sustained injury to his vertibral wedge and the same was compressed and the fell on the ground Immediately after the accident, the parents of the petitioner were informed and the injured-petitioner was admitted in Bhadrachalam hospital and from there he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital where he was treated as an inpatient from 1-4-1988 to 6-5-1988, and was taken to the place of the petitioner, viz., Jonnada as his parents were informed that it is a difficult case and recovery is impossible. As a result of the injury, the petitioner became para-paralysis and urinating and stools is a major problem as there is no sensation and the petitioner is bed-ridden for the rest of his life foregoing all the pleasures of his life and is put to untold physical and mental hardship.
3. The petitioner originally claimed a compensation of Rs. 3,97,650/-. At one stage, the respondents remained ex parte and ex parte decree was passed. Subsequently, on a petition filed by the 2nd respondent, the ex parte decree was set aside and thereafter the 2nd respondent filed a counter. At that stage, the claim petitioner filed an application for amendment of the petition thereby enhancing the claim from Rs. 3,97,650/- to Rs. 6,97,650/- and it was allowed by the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent filed a detailed counter in the claims Tribunal, contending, inter-alia, that the compensation claimed is highly exaggerated.
4. Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant. P.W.1 D. Ramireddy is the claim petitioner himself and P.W.2 is Dr. V. Srinadh is the Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Chintoor, who examined P.W.1 immediately after the accident. Four documents were also marked on behalf of the claim petitioner. Ex.A-1 is the certified copy of the charge sheet in the Crime No. 7/88 of Chintoor P.S. Ex.A-2 is the certified copy of the injury certificate of P.W.1 Ex.A-3 is the OP. Chit and Ex.A-4 is under-treatment certificate, both issued by the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. On behalf of the respondents. R.W.1 Head Constable in Special Armed Force of Madhya Pradesh at Jagadalpur who is stated to have been travelling in the vehicle in question on the fateful day, was examined as R.W.1.
5. As already stated, after consideration of the entire material on record, the lower Tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 5,30,856/- together with interest and proportionate costs. Having been aggrieved by the said award, the appellants, who are respondents in the Lower-Tribunal, have preferred this appeal.
6. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the vehicle in question, owned by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and driven by the 3rd respondent, met with an accident on 30-4-1988 in which the claim petitioner sustained injuries. It is also evident from Ex.A-1 that the 3rd respondent-driver was charge-sheeted for the offence and he was produced before the Magistrate’s Court and on his own admission of the guilt, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-. it is also evident that subsequently the driver was shot dead in a Naxalite encounter. So, on an overall appreciation of the entire evidence on record it is established beyond doubt that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the 3rd respondent. The evidence of P.W.2 Medical Officer, Government Hospital, Chintoor shows that on 30-3-1988 on a requisition from Police, Chintoor he examined the injured (P.W.1) and found an abrasion on the chin below the mid-portion of the mouth, a perforated injury on the mid portion of left sole inner edge and dissection of abdomen. According to the doctor P.W.2, the petitioner was unable to move both lower limbs. He stated that the disability which the petitioner had suffered is a permanent disability and that the percentage of the disability is total and he estimated the disability as cent percent and there are absolutely no chances of recovery and the petitioner becoming normal. According to the opinion of the doctor, even if the petitioner would be taken to abroad and even if expert treatment would be given, there would be no chance of the petitioner getting normal life. The doctor further stated that the petitioner has to lead life of cripple throughout and that urination and passing of stools cannot be in the normal position. Thus, it is clearly established from the evidence of the doctor that the injured-claim Petitioner sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question, that the disability which the petitioner had suffered is a permanent disability and that the percentage of disability is cent percent. It is also established that urination and passing of stools cannot be in the normal position and that the injured petitioner has to lead a crippled life through out.
7. Now coming to the main controversy with regard to the quantum of compensation, the lower Tribunal mainly relying upon the guidelines laid down by a learned single Judge of this Court (M. Jagannadha Rao, J as he then was) in A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Dayanand Naidu, 1987 (2) ALT 367 in all awarded a total compensation of Rs. 5,30,856/-. It is the case of the petitioner that in the course of his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles he was earning about Rs. 50/- per day. It is only an oral statement made by the petitioner without any proof. There is no evidence on record that there is any fixed shop for the petitioner for doing his wholesale and retail business in stainless steel articles. As is evident from the circumstances of mis case, the petitioner was eking out his livelihood as hawker in stainless steel articles roaming about from village to village. In such 1. 1987 a case he has to spend some money out of his earnings towards boarding and lodging and also towards travelling expenses. When he has to incur so much expenditure out of his earnings, it cannot be said that his net earnings or savings would be Rs. 50/- per day. In cases of this nature where the respondents belong to Madhya Pradesh State, they are not expected to know the avocation of the injured or the deceased persons, as the case may be, and consequently they cannot prove the income potentiality of the injured. The income potentiality of the injured is within his exclusive knowledge and in the case of the deceased it is within the exclusive knowledge of the persons related or connected with the deceased. Generally it is always the tendency of the claimants to give exaggerated amounts. It is for the Tribunal to decide in the light of the facts and circumstances of that particular case to award just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal has to take into account the expenses incurred by an unmarried boy aged about 20 years, who is stated to have been earning Rs. 50/- per day, by doing business as a hawker in stainless steel articles roaming from village to village incurring expenditure towards boarding, lodging and travelling. It is the duty of the Tribunal to make an attempt to find out the probable or reasonable or just amount that is expected to be realised by a person. No such attempt appears to have been made by the Tribunal in this case. The Tribunal has been merely carried away by the version given by the injured. So we feel that the finding of the lower tribunal that the petitioner was earning about Rs. 1500/- per month by doing business in stainless steel articles appears to be on high side. It may be true that the petitioner might be earning agross income of Rs. 50/- per day but the lower tribunal should have taken into account the probable expenditure incurred by an unmarried boy of 20 years age towards his boarding, lodging and travelling. If we give some margin for these expenses, the net income would be much more less than what the lower tribunal has fixed. Generally in cases of this nature exaggerated version with regard to the income will be given by the claimants and on other hand the respondents will be attacking it to be high and their tendency would be to give the income of the injured or deceased on the lowest side. It is for the Tribunal using its judicial wisdom to decide what would be just compensation. The Legislature in its wisdom thought it fit to use the word “just compensation” by leaving the discretion to the Tribunals to decide what is the reasonable amount that can be awarded in the given circumstances. So, when the entire discretion is given to the Tribunal, the Tribunal must make a genuine effort to find out what would be the reasonable and just compensation taking into account the probable income of the injured or the deceased person, as the case may be. Such an attempt has not been made in this case. The learned Tribunal was merely carried away by the judgments of this court reported in P. Satyanarayana v. I.B.R Prasad, 1987 (2) ALT 328, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Dayanand Naidu (1 supra), Bhagwandas v. MD. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137 and Islavath Namma v. S.A. Raheem, 1987 (2) ALT 378 which were referred to by him in his judgment. But to our minds, what the learned Judge of the Tribunal has done is not correct. We should not tie the hands of the tribunal when the Legislature itself has given judicial discretion to be exercised by a Tribunal to decide the reasonable or just compensation that is payable to the claimants. Fixing up of a table for all purposes of an omnibus type cannot be said to be a correct guide line for the tribunals. The compensation differs from place to place, region to region and man to man. In Andhra Pradesh the wages are not uniform. In the backward areas the wages are less. In urban areas they may be somewhat higher and in cities like Hyderabad etc., the wages may be high. In the case of employed persons definite income can be arrived at but in the case of unemployed youth it is very difficult to find out the exact income. Under these circumstances we are of the firm opinion that the compensation fixed by the lower tribunal following the table given by a learned single Judge of this Court is not correct. In fact, though the petitioner originally claimed only Rs. 3,97,650/- the table given by the learned single Judge prompted him to enhance his claim to Rs. 6,97,650/- by way of amendment. Originally he had an ex parte award for Rs. 3,97,650/- in his favour but only after it was set aside at the instance of the respondents, the claim was got enhanced by way of amendment petition for Rs. 3,97,650/- to Rs. 6,97,650/-. The object of getting the ex parte award set aside by the respondents is not to suffer a decree for higher amount than what was already passed against them. The table adopted by the learned single Judge may be correct so far as that particular case is concerned because the facts and circumstances of that particular case may warrant fixation of that table. But that should not be made applicable to each and every case as each case has to be decided on its own merits. The table given by the learned single Judge cannot be accepted as it does not reflect correct position or a correct guideline to arrive at the just and reasonable compensation in each case. In the case on hand there are no changed circumstances from the date on which the petitioner originally claimed compensation of Rs .3,97,650/- till the date of filing 6f the amendment petition. When there is no proper explanation that is forth coming about the claim for enhanced amount and the basis on which the claim under different heads has been made, we feel that the argument advanced by Sri P. Nagaseshaiah, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants that no substantial material has been placed before the Tribunal for the grant of so much amount of compensation appears to be correct. It is true that the party is at liberty to amend the petition at any stage. But the right given for amendment itself does not mean that he is entitled to the enhanced compensation amount claimed under amendment on the basis of the judgment rendered by this court fixing up a table. We feel that the approach made by the lower court is no correct. The table given by the learned single Judge is only with reference to standard income derived by the injured or the deceased, as the case may be. In foreign countries the income can easily be worked out as everyone there will be having a settled income but in India such is not the case. As already stated, the income of an individual varies from place to place, region to region and man to man. So the table which has been given basing on the English Law which does not reflect true state of affairs in our country in general and in our region in particular cannot be taken as a guiding principle in each and every case. The Legislature itself has given judicial discretion to the Tribunate to arrive at a just and reasonable compensation taking into account the facts and circumstances of a particular case. When such is the right vested in the Tribunal, we feel that that right should (not) be taken away by the table given by the learned single Judge. With regard to the procedure and practice this court may make a law which is generally applicable in all like cases but in the cases of compensation generalisation or rationalisation by introducing a certain table not supported by any statute cannot be allowed. The economic back ground, the status of the injured or deceased, as the case may be, loss of dependency etc., are all the factors that have to be taken into consideration and they will certainly vary from case to case and man to man. We feel that fixing up of a table and making the Tribunals to follow the same will be only taking away judicial discretion given to them under the statute. It is brought to our notice that because of the table the discretion of the tribunals has been fettered away. Viewed from any angle, the table given by the learned single Judge will not be of any avail to the petitioner.
8. In the present case, the injured person is permanently disabled and as is evident from the evidence of the doctor the petitioner has to lead crippled life and the urination and passing of stools cannot be in the normal position. Some attendant is highly essential through out his life to look after him and to attend to his timely needs, besides giving medical treatment. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we feel that the compensation amount of Rs. 3,97,650/-, originally claimed by the petitioner under several heads, would be the just and reasonable compensation that can be awarded to the petitioner in this case.
9. In the result, the compensation as fixed by the lower Tribunal is modified and a compensation of Rs. 3,97,650/- (Rupees three lakhs ninety seven thousand six hundred and fifty only) is awarded to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the petitioner in the lower tribunal till the date of payment with proportionate costs, and respondents 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the said amount. As the said amount has already been deposited in court by the respondents at the time of obtain stay order, we direct that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) shall be invested in any nationalised Bank in the name of the petitioner renewable periodically through out the life of the petitioner, with a direction that the quarterly interest payable on the said deposit shall be credited to the account of the petitioner-claimant with a liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the same for utilising the same for his maintenance expenses, medical expenses and salary that may be payable to the attendant etc. The claimant-petitioner is also given liberty to withdraw the amount, over and above Rs. 3,00,000/- and also the interest and costs deposited by the respondents. The appeal is accordingly allowed.