THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1864 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The appellant-claimant filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order, dated 25.03.2004, passed in O.P.No.2303 of 2001 by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 26.05.2001 at about 7.30 p.m. while the petitioner was coming from duty on Bajaj Chetak Scooter bearing No.AP-28S-4124, as a pillion rider, and while they were reaching Manda Narasimha Reddy Garden at Champapet, the driver of offending Fiat Car bearing No.AP-10A-3978, which was coming from Karmanghat side towards I.S.Sadan, suddenly reversed the vehicle towards Karmanghat side, due to which, the Fiat Car and the scooter dashed each other. As a result of the said accident, the claimant received mandible fractures, head injury and injuries to hands, legs and spinal card, multiple injuries all over the body and lost her all teeth. Immediately she was shifted to Rohini Hospital, Champapet, wherein the doctors have given first aid and advised her to admit in Neuro Hospital as she received serious head injury. Immediately, she was shifted to Sai Krishna Neuro Hospital. Due to the said accident, she is not in a position to take solid food and she suffered mental agony. At the time of accident, she was aged about 22 years and has completed M.Com., and also computer course. She was doing job in Raga Software and was drawing a sum of Rs.2,500/- per month. She had spent huge amount for medical expenses and she may incur some more expenditure for future treatment. Hence, she filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte, whereas, the third respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. By the order impugned, the Court below awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-to the claimant. Disputing the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant vehemently contended that the Court below failed to consider the medial expenditure of Rs.40,000/- incurred by the claimant at Sai Krishna Super Speciality Hospital, Kachiguda and Dental Care Hospital, Kachiguda, wherein she had incurred more than Rs.40,000/- for fixation of teeth and mandible fractures and that the Court below failed to see the disfigurement of the face, mandible fractures and loss of teeth, and therefore, he prays to enhance the compensation. 4. P.W.3-Neuro Surgeon, who treated the claimant, deposed that the claimant received symthasis mandible injury and fracture of left condyele; that she was treated in their hospital as in-patient from 26.05.201 to 01.06.2001; that operation was done IMF on left TM Joint under general Anaesthesia (Open reduction and fixation with plant at symphasis); that the injuries received by the claimant are grievous in nature and she also received injury subtile anterior subluxation of C.V.5 body over C.V.4 body and due to the said injuries the face of the claimant was disfigured. 5. P.W.4, who is the Cosmetic Dental Surgeon, deposed that he treated the claimant in 2001; that he done root canal treatment for teeth 421/6 12/56 and replaced the folming teeth and that the claimant has spent Rs.48,000/- for 18 teeth. 6. As per the evidence of P.W.1, at the time of accident she was working in a private company and drawing a sum of Rs.2500/- per month. If the salary of the claimant is taken at Rs.2500/- per month, her annual income comes to Rs.30,000/-. Since P.W.3, the Neuro Surgeon, who treated the claimant, has categorically deposed that the face of the claimant was disfigured, I deem it appropriate to assess the disability sustained by the claimant at 25%. After taking into consideration 25% from her annual income for determining compensation, her annual income comes to Rs.7,500/- per annum (Rs.30,000/- x 25%). Since the claimant was aged about 22 years at the time of accident, as per the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another[1], the appropriate multiplier is ‘17’. Therefore, the compensation towards disability comes to Rs.1,27,500/- (Rs.7,500/- x 17). In addition to the same, a sum of Rs.40,000/- is awarded towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Thus, in total, the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,77,500/- towards compensation. 7. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1,77,500/- which shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization. The award of the Court below in all other aspects shall remain unaltered. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:17.09.2010 va [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129