HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.97 of 2006 JUDGMENT:- This appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dated 13.09.2005, passed in O.P.No.414 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Gooty. 2. The said O.P was filed by the claimant/appellant herein seeking a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18/19-12- 2001. As against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.45,000/-. Hence, this appeal by the claimant. 3. While the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte, the 2nd respondent-insurer filed its counter by denying the averments made by the petitioner and contended that the claimed compensation is excessive. Further, it was alleged that the driver of the van was not added as party. On behalf of the respondents, none was examined and no exhibits were marked. 4. The Tribunal, considering the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van driver, and as per Ex.A-2-wound certificate, the appellant sustained three grievous injuries and one simple injury, accordingly awarded a total compensation of Rs.45,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellant filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. There is no dispute as to the nature and date of the accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident. To prove the claim, the claimant examined himself as P.W-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-14 which happened to be the First Information Report, Wound Certificate, Charge Sheet, Discharge Summary, Medical Bills, etc. The Tribunal, on the question of culpability in causing the accident, fixed the driver of the van bearing No.AP 02 G 5859, which finding does not warrant interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The doctors who treated the claimant were examined as PW-2 to P.W.5 and P.W.-2 – who is the Medical Superintendent of the SVS Medical College, Hospital issued the wound certificate Ex.A-2. According to P.W.-4-doctor, the implant of the claimant was broken and advised him to admit to re-operation for removal of broken inplant and fixation of fracture by inserting another inplant and conducted surgery and removed the inplant. It has come in the evidence that as on date of the accident that the claimant was aged 60 years and was a retired Assistant Director in Agricultural Department and by supervising the cultivation, as per Ex.A-12- Ryothwari Pass Book, he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. Though the claimant stated that he was earning Rs.10,000/- per month, since there is no positive evidence to prove the same, his income can be fixed at Rs.5,000/- per month which annually comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum (Rs.5,000/- x 12 months = Rs.60,000/-). Considering the evidence as to disability at 50% of the loss of disability comes to Rs. 30,000/- and as the age of the injured is 60 years, the appropriate multiplier applicable for the age group of 56 years to 60 as per the decision of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1] is ‘09’ and if the same is applied, the total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,70,000/- (Rs.30,000 x 9 =Rs.2,70,000/-). The claimant has not specified about the prescriptions, purchase of medicines and also proved medical bills, therefore an amount of compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- is granted on all counts. 7. Accordingly, this appeal filed by the petitioner is partly allowed awarding a total compensation of Rs.2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Seventy Thousand Only). As far as the rate of interest is concerned, interest at 6% per annum is awarded setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 8. In the result, the impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent indicated above and the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 31, 2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No.97 of 2006 March 31, 2011 SP/KK [1] 2009 (6) Supreme Court Cases 121