JUDGMENT
S.R. Nayak, J.
1. This appeal is by the injured seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Medak at Sangareddy (hereinafter shortly referred to as ‘M. A.C.T.’) awarding a total compensation of Rs. 42,575 /- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition. There is no cross-appeal nor cross-objections against the said Judgment and Decree. The M.A.C.T. on the basis of evidence found that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the respondent-Corporation. That finding remains unchallenged. The M.A.C.T. on the question whether the appellant-claimant suffered permanent disability, recorded a finding that the claimant has suffered 60% permanent disability. On that basis and on the basis that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 600/- per month as a cobbler, it determined total compensation payable to the appellant under the head ‘loss of future income’ at Rs. 8,640/-. Rs. 6,335.75 is awarded under the head ‘Medical expenses’. A further sum of Rs. 15,000/- is also awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering and loss of amenities of life. Added to this, a sum of Rs. 4,500/- is awarded to the appellant towards wages paid to P.W.2.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant firstly submitted that the M.A.C.T. is not justified in taking the age of the appellant as 60 years as on the date of accident solely on the basis of the evidence of the Doctor and completely ignoring the evidence of the claimant and the age given in the complaint. It is true that the age of the claimant is taken to be 60 years on the date of the accident solely on the basis of the evidence of the Doctor. Learned Judge has observed that he preferred the age given by the Doctor because the version of the claimant regarding his age was likely to be a tutored one. Whether in a given case, a claimant was tutored to give distorted version about his age is a question of fact on which finding is required to be recorded on the basis of acceptable materials or evidence. But as a general rule, it cannot be said that whenever there is a difference between the age given by the claimant and the Doctor, the opinion of the Doctor should be accepted and the version of the claimant should be totally ignored. Unfortunately, in this case, there is no corroborative evidence or acceptable evidence to support either the version of the claimant or that of the Doctor. In such a situation, I think that a via-media has to be found. I think that ends of justice would be met by taking the age of the claimant at the date of accident at about 57 or 58 years. There is no specific multiplier for such age. The multiplier prescribed by the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Das v. Mohd. Arif, 1987 (2) ALT 137, in respect of persons falling under 55 years age group is 4.27. In that view of the matter, I am inclined to apply the multiplier of 3.5 to the facts of this case.
3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the determination of the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 600/- is totally arbitrary and without any basis. The M.A.C.T., after observing that the claimant failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that his monthly income was Rs. 2,000/-, straight away proceeded to hold that the monthly income of the claimant at the time of accident is Rs. 600/-. This way of reasoning, in my considered opinion, is not proper. Even in the absence of documentary evidence, the Tribunal is enjoined with a duty to determine the income of the claimant on the basis of other forms of evidence. The M.A.C.T. has not given any reasons whatsoever not to accept the version of the claimant. It has come in the evidence that the claimant is a cobbler in profession and he was having a shop and manufacturing chappals, shoes, leather articles etc. The accident took place in the year 1988 and the claimant was a resident of Sadasivapet, a Municipality in Medak District. Having regard to all these attending circumstances and the place in which he was carrying on his avocation, I think that taking the monthly income of the claimant at Rs. 600/- is on a lower side and the income of the claimant as on the date of the accident must not have been lesser than Rs. 1,500/-. Therefore, the monthly income of the claimant as on the date of the accident should be taken to be at least Rs. 1,500/-. In that view of the matter, the appellant-claimant is entitled to Rs. 63,000/- (1500 x 12 x 3.5) under the head ‘loss of future income’.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellant next contended that the M.A.C.T. has not awarded any compensation whatsoever under the heads “transportation charges’, ‘extra nourishment’, ‘damage to clothes’ etc., solely on the basis that the claimant did not place any documentary evidence to support such claim and the reason given by the M.A.C.T. to deny the compensation under those heads is totally unjustified. It is true that the compensation under those three heads has been denied to the claimant solely on the ground that he did not produce any documentary evidence. I do not think that the approach of the M.A.C.T. is proper, particularly in the facts situation of this case. Even in the absence of documentary evidence, the M.A.C.T. ought to have granted certain reasonable compensation under those three heads. The claimant was hospitalised for nearly a month and even according to the Doctors, he suffered permanent disability. Taking into account all these attending facts and circumstances of the case, I think that ends of justice will be met by awarding a lump sum compensation of Rs. 5,000/- under the aforementioned three heads.
5. I do not find any good ground to enhance the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. on the remaining heads. In that view of the matter, the claimant-appellant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs. 98,835/- under the following heads:
(1) Loss of future income .. Rs. 63,000/-
(2) Transportation charges, Extra Nourishment
and other incidental expenses .. Rs. 5,000/-
(3) Medical expenses .. Rs. 6,335/-
(4) Remuneration paid to P.W.2 for assistance
during hospitalisation. .. Rs. 4,500/-
(5) Pain and Suffering & Loss of
Amenities of life .. Rs. 15,000/-
(6) Remuneration towards Future Assistance .. Rs. 5,000/-
-----------------
Total compensation under all the six heads. .. Rs. 98,835 / -
-----------------
The M.A.C.T. has awarded interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. I do not find any good ground or justification to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the M.A.C.T.
6. However, before concluding, an objection raised by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-Corporation should be noted. Learned Standing Councel submits that the claimant had claimed a total compensation of Rs. 88,000/- and therefore it is impermissible for the Court to grant compensation at higher rate than the one claimed by the claimant. This question raised before the Court is no longer res integra. A learned Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Lakshmi, , has taken the view that it is permissible for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to award higher compensation than the one claimed by the parties. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Judge.
7. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, I allow this appeal in part with costs, and in substitution of the decree passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I hold that the appellant-claimant is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 98,835/- (Rupees Ninety eight thousand eight thirty five only) with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from the date of petition till realisation. Advocate’s fee is fixed at Rs. 1,000/-.