JUDGMENT
Motilal B. Naik, J.
1. The appellant is the claimant in MAOP No. 94 of 1988 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam. His case is that he is a resident of Karlam village, Cheepurupalli Mandal, Vizianagaram District. On 21-9-1987, he was returning from the sea after conducting fishing operations in order to go to his village. A lorry, bearing No. APH 6975, driven by the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, came at a high speed without blowing the horn and dashed against the petitioner at the Coast Junction near Ranastalam Police Station around 2-30 P.M. Due to the said accident, he lost both his legs. He was taken to the Government Headquarters Hospital, Srikakulam, for treatment and amputation of his legs. He claimed a total compensation 6t rupees two lakhs under various heads, namely, (1) transportation to the hospital and medicines: Rs. 10,000/-; (2) Compensation for pain and suffering: Rs. 10,000/-; (3) Compensation for disfigurement: Rs. 5,000/-; (4) Compensation for loss of earnings: Rs. 1, 25,000/-; and (5) Compensation for loss of amenities: Rs. 50/000/-. The case of the appellant is that he is a fisherman and was eking out his livelihood on account of selling the fish and was earning Rs. 50/- to Rs. 70/- per day.
2. Before the lower Court, the respondents contested the matter contending that the appellant is not entitled to claim the compensation. They further contended that the accident was not due to rashness or negligence on the part of the first respondent.
3. In support of the claim, the appellant examined him self as P.W.1 and one Dr. M. Ambedkar, as P.W.2, and got marked the exhibits, A-1 to A-23. In so far as respondents are concerned, no witness was examined and no document was marked.
4. The third respondent had taken a specific plea in the counter that its liability is only rupees fifty thousand, in terms of the policy, and, therefore, prayed the lower Court to fix it accordingly in the event the Court awards compensation. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence, the lower Court granted a total compensation of rupees seventy thousand. Out of rupees seventy thousand, the lower Court directed the third respondent-insurance company to pay an amount of rupees fifty thousand only in terms of the policy and directed the second respondent to pay the other amount of rupees twenty thousand. Interest was fixed at 9% to be paid from the filing of the petition.
5. As against the said order, the matter has been carried to this Court. Shri K.S. Mallikarjuna Rao, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, says that though the appellant has proved beyond reasonable doubt before the Court below that his disability is total the lower Court has not granted the amount as claimed. Shri Mallikarjuna Rao further contends that the lower Court is wrong in directing the 3rd respondent to pay only rupees fifty thousand. Such direction is contrary to the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivasan v. Premier Insurance Company Limited, . It is further contended that the lower Court ought to have allowed the amount claimed under the heads, ‘Loss of Amenities’, ‘Medical expenses’ and ‘Pain and suffering’. It is, therefore, strenuously contended that the order of the lower Court cannot be sustained and the compensation claimed has to be allowed in toto.
6. To meet these arguments, Shri B. Viswanatha Reddy, representing the third respondent, contends that the lower Court has taken the totality of the circumstances and has reasonably granted an amount of rupees seventy thousand. Therefore, there is no illegality in such direction.
7. I have heard the Counsel at length. The fact of the accident taking place on 21-9-1987 is not disputed. The disputed areas, according to the submissions of the Counsel, is granting compensation under the heads loss of amenities’ ‘medical expenditure’ and ‘pain and suffering’ and the liability to be fixed on the third respondent. In so far as the liability of the third respondent is concerned, the matter is squarely covered by the decision cited supra and therefore, the third respondent is obliged to pay the amount up to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Coming to the question of loss of amenities’, the claim under that head is for rupees fifty thousand. The appellant, as on the date of the accident, was only thirty five years of age. He is married with five children and has a deserted sister depending upon him. His disability is total. By reason of the amputation, I am of the view that, the appellant suffers loss of the amenities which nature had provided him. Therefore, he is entitled to get some relief under the head ‘loss of amenities’. In the circumstances I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to an amount of rupees twenty thousand under the head ‘loss of amenities’. Coming to the other aspect, granting compensation under the head ‘pain and suffering’, the claim is rupees ten thousand. Taking the amount which is directed to be paid to the appellant under the head of ‘loss of amenities’, I am of the view that the appellant is entitled to claim rupees eight thousand towards ‘pain and suffering’.
8. In so far as the compensation on the ground of ‘loss of earnings’, the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Kerala Road Transport Corporation v. Mrs. S. Thomas and Ors. makes it clear that the multiplier has to be necessarily applied taking into account the earnings of the person who meets with the accident. From the earnings, one-third has to be set apart for his personal expenditure. The lower Court has fixed tentatively the appellant’s earnings at Rs. 15/- to Rs. 20/- per day. Accepting that the petitioner is earning rupees twenty per day, per month his earnings come to Rs. 600/-. From that, one-third is set apart for meeting personal expenditure and the balance amount of rupees four hundred becomes available to the dependents. The appellant is aged thirty-five years. The multiplier in this case is 14.81. When rounded off, it will be ’15’. Loss of earnings has to be fixed at Rs. 400 x 12 x 15. That comes to Rs. 72,000/-. As far as the interest part is concerned, it is seen that the lower Court has granted nine per cent only. I am of the view, in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court in the second case cited supra, that the appellant is entitled to twelve per cent from the date of filing of the application. In view of the discussions, I hold that the appellant is entitled to the following amounts:
(1) Loss of earnings: Rs. 72,000/-;
(2) Loss of amenities: Rs. 20,000/-; and
(3) Pain & suffering: Rs. 8,000/-;
The appellant is also entitled to claim interest at the rate of twelve per cent from the date of filing the application. Accordingly, the order of the lower Court is modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. No costs.