HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO. 1953 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 against award dated 03-07-2006 passed in O.P.No.635 of 2003 on the file of the III Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XVII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. For the sake of convenience, I refer to the parties as arrayed in the O.P. 3. The factual background of the appeal is that the petitioner was travelling in a seven seater auto bearing No.AP 11 W 1396 and at about mid-night, when the auto reached near Jaihind Hotel, Saidabad, a lorry bearing No. AP A 9195 driven by its driver, came in high speed in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the auto and as a result, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries and fractures all over the body. Saidabad police have registered crime No.9 of 2003. Hence he filed the said O.P seeking compensation. 4. On behalf of the respondents, R-1 remained exparte and R-2 filed its counter denying the occurrence of the narration of the incident and contended that the compensation claimed by the petitioner is excessive. R-2 further contended that there was no negligence on behalf of the lorry driver and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the seven seater auto and hence, it is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation. On behalf of the petitioner P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-13 were marked, Exs.X-1 to X-7 were marked by the Court. On behalf of the respondents, none were examined however, Ex.B-1- the true copy of Insurance Policy Certificate was got marked. 6. The Tribunal on evidence rightly held that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP A 9195 by its driver, the accident occurred and due to which, the claimant sustained injuries on 06-01-2003 midnight. As far as the claim of compensation is concerned, according to PW-1,the petitioner was hale and healthy prior to accident and was working as a salesman and earning Rs.6,000/- per month. No profession and income certificates of the injured are produced before the Court. However, as the age of the injured was assessed to be 35 and considering the circumstances existed at the time of incident, ends of justice would be met if the earnings of the injured is fixed at Rs.3,500/- per month, and per annum it comes to Rs.42,000/- (Rs.3,500/- x 12months=Rs.42,000/- ). Quantified on the 60% disability, loss of earnings comes to Rs.25,200/- (Rs.42,000 x 60%). The relevant multiplier for injured is 15 and if applied the same, the total loss of earnings comes to Rs.3,78,000/- (25,200x15= 3,78,000/-). Apart from this a sum of Rs.10,480/- is awarded towards medical bills totaling the amount to Rs.3,88,480/-. 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the appellant is partly allowed. As far as the interest is concerned, the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal at 7.5% per annum reducing to 6%. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 03,2011 SP/KK HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA NO.1953 OF 2006 March 03, 2011 SP/KK