HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1697 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.435 of 2001 in its order dated 19-12-2002 for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that on 22-8-2000 at about 4 p.m. when the appellant-claimant was going on a bicycle on NH-7 near Dhone, on the extreme left side of the road, the lorry bearing No.AP-21T-4875 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed the bicycle, as a result, he fell down and sustained injuries. The claimant filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry involved in the accident, for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded compensation of Rs.47,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. Dissatisfied with the compensation, the claimant preferred this appeal. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the insurance company and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal has not correctly arrived at the loss of future earnings and future prospects especially in view of the disability suffered by the claimant and that the compensation granted is on the lower side. On the other hand, learned standing counsel for the insurance company supported the impugned order. 5. It is seen from the record that the claimant examined PWs 1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 while the RW-1 was examined and Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy was marked. The Tribunal has relied upon the oral testimony of the claimant PW-1 and Ex.A-1 FIR to arrive at the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry. The finding as to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry is not disputed. 6. Coming to the compensation, the deceased was aged 20 years by the date of accident and PW-2 Doctor who treated the claimant, stated that the claimant suffered 20% disability. The claimant suffered injuries and he was working as coolie at the relevant time. Having regard to the date of accident and the average income of a coolie in the year 2000, I am inclined to fix the monthly income of the claimant at Rs.2,500/- and it works out to Rs.30,000/- per annum and the injured suffered 20% disability and as such, the loss of future earnings on account of disability works out to Rs.6,000/-. Since the injured was aged 20 years at the time of accident, I am inclined to apply ‘18’ multiplier and thus, the loss of future earnings on account of 20% disability works out to Rs.1,08,000/- (Rs.6000 x 18). Apart from that, the Tribunal awarded Rs.6,000/- towards pain and suffering on account of injuries; Rs.2,500/- towards medical expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of past earnings from the date of filing of OP till he became normal. Having regard to the nature of injuries resulting in disability, pain and suffering undergone by the claimant, period of treatment and expenses incurred towards medicines during the period of treatment and afterwards, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly granted the aforesaid amounts under different heads. 7. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed with proportionate costs, enhancing the compensation amount to Rs.1,19,000/- (Rupees one lakh nineteen thousand only). The enhanced compensation shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till payment. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 15-7-2010 bsc