THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 3704 of 2003 JUDGMENT Aggrieved against the order and decree dated 7.7.2003 in O.P.No. 200 of 2001 on the file of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Vizianagaram, the present appeal is filed urging that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the appellant-claimant undergone treatment for four months as inpatient and also undergone surgery for fracture and as such he ought to have allowed the claim of the appellant-claimant as prayed for. He further urged that the learned Judge erred in awarding Rs. 70,000/- towards the pain and suffering and also for not considering Ex.A- 5, the medical bills. During the course of arguments, it is also brought to the notice of the Court that the lower Court erroneously applied multiplier 5 instead applied multiplier 7 and placed reliance on the decision reported in SARALA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS Vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS[1] and urged for the enhancement of compensation. The O.P. is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 2,65,000/- on the ground that the injured met with an accident on 30.8.99 at about 8 a.m. while she was taking tea along with others on the road side tea bunk. It is alleged that the driver of the offending maruthi van drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her as a result of which, she sustained fracture to her right leg. In proof of the accident, she filed Exs.A-1 to A-4 and the learned Judge on appreciating the evidence of P.W-1 coupled with the Exs.A-1 to A-4 held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which was insured with respondent No.3. The learned Judge while computing the compensation awarded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- towards the disability, Rs. 7,000/- towards the loss of pain and loss of amenities and Rs. 8,000/- towards the extra nourishment, transport etc. For assessment of compensation in injury claims, the age of the claimant, multiplier applicable to the case, earning capacity of the injured and percentage of the disability are the relevant factors. A perusal of the Order of the lower Court, it is observed that age of the injured is about 62 years basing on Ex.A-2 wound certificate. This Ex.A-2 is pressed into service by the appellant herself. Either parties did not disputed the age. Therefore, the age of the injured can be safely fixed as 62 years on the date of the accident. While applying the multiplier noted in the aforesaid decision, multiplier 7 has to be applied to the age group between 61 to 65 years. Since the injured is about 62 years, a female, normally her earning capacity will be not more than Rs. 50/- per day as rightly observed by the lower Court. Regarding the disability as per P.W-1, she sustained fracture to the right leg and she was hospitalized in the Government hospital, Vizianagaram, later shifted to Sai Vamshi Nursing home for expert treatment and she underwent surgery for her right leg. Ex.A-9 is disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Vizianagaram, which shows the disability is 20%, which is partial and permanent. As per Ex.A-2 wound certificate, P.W-1 sustained two injuries and out of them one is fracture to both bones of right leg. Therefore, taking into consideration, the multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant, her annual income and percentage of disability, suffering by the petitioner, the compensation payable to the appellant is fixed at Rs. 21,000/- (Rs. 15,000/- x 7 x 20/100: Rs. 21,000/-). The lower Court granted a sum fo Rs. 7,000/- towards the pain and suffering, but in my view, taking into consideration, the age of the injured granting of Rs. 10,000/- on that score is just and reasonable. The petitioner filed Ex.A-5 bunch of medical bills for Rs. 49,954/-, but those bills were not proved by examining any doctor, who issued the said receipts. However, in the circumstances of the case on hand, as P.W-1 sustained two fractures and underwent surgery and was hospitalized and that she was in continuous treatment for couple of months. Therefore, granted a sum of Rs. 15,000/- against Rs. 8,000/- as awarded by the lower Court. Thus the extra-nourishment and transport charges is just and reasonable. In total, the petitioner is granted compensation of Rs. 46,000/- against the amount of Rs. 30,000/- granted by the lower Court. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. before the tribunal till realization. With this modification, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ 4.3.2011 CHV [1] 2009(6) S.C.C. 121