THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.1958 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 31.10.2002 in M.V.O.P.No.323 of 1998 passed by the Chairman- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Tirupati. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant herein is the claimant in the main O.P. On 04.05.1988 at about 8.00 P.M. when the appellant, his wife and their two years old daughter were proceeding on his scooter driven by him towards Saibaba temple, Benj Circle, Patamata,Vijayawada on the ring road, a lorry bearing No.TN 58 2988 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter of the appellant, as a result, the appellant sustained grievous injury to his left leg. The appellant underwent treatment in MUS Ortho Hospital, Vijayawada. Learned counsel for the appellant alleged that the Tribunal erred in granting Rs.2,000/- only towards extra nourishment and ought to have awarded more than Rs.50,000/- and that the Tribunal erred in taking the multiplier ‘12’ only instead of ‘16’ and failed to follow the earlier judgment of the same Tribunal, where the multiplier ‘16’ had taken and that the Tribunal erred in taking the income of the appellant as Rs.2,500/- only instead of Rs.4,500/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents while replying the arguments urged that the lower Tribunal while taking into consideration, the material on record came to the correct conclusion while granting compensation. Now the point for consideration is whether the finding of the lower Tribunal is sustainable and that the appellant is also entitled for enhancement of compensation. As seen from the record, the appellant filed the present O.P. claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident occurred on 04.05.1988. After due enquiry, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.2,15,810/- taking into the income of the injured as Rs.1,500/- per month. Aggrieved against the said orders, the appellant preferred C.M.A. and this Court, while setting aside the orders in O.P.No.323 of 1998 was pleased to remand the matter to the lower Tribunal with the direction to give opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence regarding his income. Pursuant to the above directions, PW.4 was examined in lower Tribunal besides examining PWs 5 and 6. The petitioner claimed Rs.5,00,000/- towards disability and loss of earning power. The petitioner’s case is that prior to the accident, he was working as a Laison Officer in M/s Real Fabs Engineering Constructions having its head office at Vizag. Due to disability, he could not report for duty and so his services were terminated and he placed reliance on Exs.A.5 and A.6. The appellant when failed to examine the employer, who issued Ex.A.5 salary certificate, the income of the appellant was fixed at Rs.1,500/- per month after remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal. The employer was examined as PW.4. Basing on his evidence, the income of the injured was fixed at Rs.2,500/- per month. Admittedly, the salary of the injured is Rs.4,500/- per month as gross salary on which the lower Tribunal fixed the net salary at Rs.2,500/- as income and applied the multiplier. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal ought to have taken the multiplier ‘16’ instead of ‘12’. It is seen from the impugned judgment that the lower Tribunal came to the conclusion that even though the petitioner is said to be 35 years old, but he has not produced any record to that affect. As such, the lower Tribunal has chosen to apply the multiplier of ‘12’. Initially the very same Tribunal awarded compensation of a sum of Rs.2,15,810/-, but after remanding the matter by this Court, the lower Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.3,59,410/-, which is more than the compensation earlier awarded. In any event, the petitioner/appellant got the enhanced amount pursuant to the additional evidence adduced at the time of second trial. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the finding of the lower Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.3,59,410/- while fixing the salary of the injured as Rs.2,500/- is justified and sustainable. As far as the rate of interest is concerned, as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma and others v Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], only 6% rate of interest can be granted. But, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the submission made by the appellant’s counsel and that as no cross objections filed by the insurance company, I confirm the rate of interest @ 12% per annum as granted earlier treating the present case as a special case. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the lower Court judgment. No costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J 11th February, 2011 PNV [1] 2009 ACJ,1298