THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No.291 of 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the claimant against the order dated 06.12.2005 in O.P. No.277 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribuna-cum- Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy whereby and whereunder the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs.46,000/- as against his claim for Rs.1,50,000/-, with interest at 7 ½% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. 3. The facts leading to filing of this appeal can be summarized as follows: That on 20.03.2004 at 3.00 p.m. when the petitioner was driving his Auto bearing No. AP-13/V-8562 near Malkapur village on N.H.9, Canter vehicle bearing No.AP-9X-4005, came in opposite direction, driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver and dashed against the auto, resultantly, the auto was damaged and the petitioner sustained fracture of his both hands and legs besides injuries all over his body. Kondapur Police registered a case in Crime No.27 of 2004 under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the Canter. 4. Both the respondents filed their respective counters inter alia, contending that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner-Auto driver and that the claim made by the petitioner is exorbitant. 5. The Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of both sides, framed the issues as to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of Canter Vehicle bearing No.AP-9X-4005 and the entitlement of the petitioner. 6. On behalf of the petitioner, PWs1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked, whereas no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondents, except marking Ex.B.1-copy of insurance policy of Canter vehicle. 7. After taking the oral and documentary evidence and the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Canter Vehicle bearing No. AP-9X- 4005 and that respondent No.1 being the owner of the Canter Vehicle and respondent No.2 being insurer of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.46,000/- as compensation to the petitioner. 8. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal is preferred by the petitioner. 9. It is the case of the petitioner that that the Tribunal failed to apply multiplier method for assessing the compensation. The Doctor who had initially treated the petitioner was examined as PW.2 and he has testified that the petitioner had suffered commuted fracture of shaft right femur. As per Ex.A.3- injury certificate, the petitioner suffered contusion on right thigh with swelling of the region. The petitioner also suffered injury to right hip joint with short knee by 2”. Thus, the petitioner suffered 20% disability. It is contended that the petitioner was an auto driver and that due to the factures suffered in the motor vehicle accident, he lost his daily earnings of Rs.300/- to Rs.400/- per day. 10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.2- insurance company submits that the Tribunal after considering the material on record has awarded a total compensation of Rs.46,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7 ½% per annum which is quite reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with by this court. 11. Heard both sides and perused the record. 12. It is to be seen that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount under the head of loss of earnings and it ought to have awarded some amount under the said head by applying appropriate multiplier. The petitioner is an auto driver at the time of accident. Since the petitioner is said to be an auto driver, his income can be fixed at Rs.3,000/- per month. There is no conclusive proof with regard to the age of the petitioner, but in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, his age can be taken as 30 years at the time of the accident. Further, in the light of the testimony of PW.2-medical witness coupled with Exs.A.3, A5 and A6, it can be said that the petitioner had sustained 20% permanent disability. Since the petitioner suffered 20% permanent disability, his loss of earnings would be Rs.7,200/-- per annum. As per the decision of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) AND OTHERS v. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND ANOTHER[1], the appropriate multiplier for a person aged between 26 to 30 years is “17”. If the same is applied, the total loss of earnings would come to Rs.1,22,400/- (Rs.7,200/- x17). 13. Therefore, it is to be held that the petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,37,400/- (Rupees one lakh Thirty Seven Thousand four hundred) only (i.e.Rs.1,22,400/- towards loss of earnings on account of 20% permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/-extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges), with interest at 6% per annum in so far as the enhanced compensation is concerned. 14. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No order as to costs. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA,J - -2011 Stp [1] (2009) 6 SCC 121