HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A. No :3398 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 28.9.2004 in O.P. No. 2445 of 2002 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge, Fast Track Court, Hyderabad. The appellant is the injured claimant. According to the appellant, on 28.6.2002, while the appellant along with his friend were travelling from Shamshabad to Shadnagar and when they were near Thondupalli Village, a bus bearing No. AP 10Z 4874 belonging to the respondent-Corporation being driven by its driver came in a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the scooter. As a result, he suffered fracture of right tibia, besides a composite fracture. He, therefore, filed the aforementioned claim petition before the Court below claiming compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. While opposing the O.P., the respondents filed a counter affidavit denying the occurrence of the accident. They also denied the age and avocation of the injured claimant. They further pleaded that the claim was speculative in nature. . Basing on the aforesaid pleadings, the Court below framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in the accident on 28.6.2002 at about 4.30 P.M. due to rash and negligent driving of the A.P.S.R.T.C. bus bearing No. AP 10 Z 4874 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? In order to prove his case, the appellant got himself examined as P.W.1 besides, examining the doctor who treated the appellant as P.W.2. and got marked Exs. P1 to P6. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was let in. The Court below on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the appellant filed the claim petition with manipulated record and on that ground, it dismissed the petition. Hence, the appellant filed the present appeal. Smt A. Chaya Devi, leaned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the appellant filed Ex.A1, Certified Copy of F.I.R. to prove the occurrence of the accident, the Court below failed to take the same into consideration. She further submitted that the appellant examined P.W.2, the doctor to show that he sustained permanent disability to an extent of 30%, but, the Court below did not take the same into consideration. He, therefore, contended that the Court below did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and erroneously dismissed the O.P. Hence, she prayed that the appeal be allowed by granting necessary compensation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference. Admittedly, in the instant case, the appellant filed Ex. A1, copy of FIR to prove that he sustained injuries in the accident, which occurred on 28/6/2002. It may be true that the appellant did not mention the full particulars, viz., place of accident, manner of accident and the names of the injured claimant and that there are some corrections with regard to the timing of the accident in the F.I.R. But, in the absence of any contra evidence let in by the respondents to disprove the occurrence of the accident, the Court below was not justified in disbelieving the occurrence of the accident itself. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant has been able to prove that the accident in question occurred on 28.6.2002 and that he sustained injuries in the accident in question. In order to prove that he sustained disability to an extent of 30% on account of the injuries received by him in the accident in question, he examined P.W.2, the doctor , who treated him for the injuries sustained by him. The appellant also filed Ex.P5, disability certificate issued by the doctor to show that he sustained disability to an extent of 30% on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident in question. When there is no contra evidence adduced by the respondent-corporation to disprove the same, the Court below was not justified in disbelieving the same. The appellant was aged about 25 years as on the date of the occurrence of the accident. Though the appellant pleaded that he is a businessman and was earning about Rs.4500/- per month, he did not file any material to show that he was earning that much amount. However, the income of the appellant can be notionally fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month. Taking into account the fact that the appellant sustained disability to an extent of 30%, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs. 10,800/-. (Rs. 3000x12x30%). In so far as multiplier is concerned, as per the judgment of SARLA VARMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORAITON & OTHERS([1]), the appropriate that would be applicable to the age of the appellant is 18. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 18, the loss of earnings can be assessed at Rs.1,94,400/- (Rs. 10800 x18). In addition to this, the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. In all the appellant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,04,400/- as compensation. Since the appellant claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation before the Court below, the claim amount is restricted to Rs.1,00,000/-. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the respondents are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation together with interest at 7% from the date of petition till the date of realization. On such deposit, the appellant-claimant is entitled to withdraw the compensation amount without furnishing any security. No costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 24th February, 2011 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129