HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No.2686 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award, dated 23-06-2006, passed in O.P.No.2495 of 2003 on the file of the V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XIX Additional Chie Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The appellant is the claimant and the respondents are the respondents in the said O.P. 3. The facts stated are that:- The O.P was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident that occurred on 03-08- 2003 at about 9.15 A.M, when the claimant was proceeding on Hero Honda bearing No.AP 28 AA 134 from Ponnal Village towards Yapral on Rajiv Rahadari road near Shameerpet Village, at that time a lorry bearing registration No. AP F 5786 came in high speed, with rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle, as a result of which, he sustained injuries. To prove his claim, the claimant examined himself as PW.1 and marked documents Ex.A.1 to A.9 out of which Ex.A.1 is the certified copy of the F.I.R and Ex.A.3 is the certified copy of the charge-sheet. 4. The Tribunal, considering the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and accordingly granted compensation of Rs.67,000/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the claimant filed this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company. Perused the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6. There is no dispute as to the date and nature of the accident and the claimant sustaining injuries in the said accident. In view of the evidence of the claimant himself examined as PW.1 and also Ex.A-1 copy of the F.I.R and Ex.A-2 Charge Sheet and the evidence adduced by the claimants which remained unrebutted, the Tribunal right in fixing the culpability on the part of the driver of the accident lorry in question in causing the accident and the same does not warrant any interference by this Court. Coming to the question of adequacy or otherwise of compensation granted by the Tribunal, as on date of the accident, the claimant was aged 33 years and as per Ex.A-7 Salary Certificate, he was working as Engineer in Wipro, earning Rs.6,187/- per month. It has come in the evidence of PW.2-doctor that the claimant sustained fracture of right upper cord 1/3rd of Fibula. The doctor also stated that the claimant required further surgery for correcting his fracture. Ex.A- 3 is the medical certificate issued by the New City Hospital. According to the doctor, the claimant sustained disability to the extent of 20%. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence, the sum of Rs.6,187/- per month has to be taken as income of the claimant and it annually comes to Rs.74,244/-. Thus, the disability quantified at 20%, works out to Rs.14,848/- (74,244 x 20%), considering the age of the claimant at 33 years, the appropriate multiplier is ‘16’ as per the decision in SARALA VERMA VS. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[1],and the same is applied, the amount towards disability comes to Rs.2,37,568/-. Apart from this, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards pain and suffering and Rs.28,900/- towards medical bills totaling to Rs.2,71,468/- and the same is rounded of to Rs.2,71,500/-. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified granting total compensation of Rs.2,71,500/-, subject to condition of payment of Court fee on the enhanced amount with interest rate at 7% per annum. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J March 17, 2011 SP/KK HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA.No.2686 of 2006 Date: 17-03-2011 KK/SP [1] 2009 (6) scale 129