THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CMA No.2186 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2001 passed in O.P.No.211 of 1999 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda. The appellant is the claimant. Respondent No.1 is the owner of the vehicle and respondent No.2 is the Insurance Company. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. According to the petitioner, on 14.12.1998 in the evening hours he went to Bankapuram Village in order to engage agricultural labour. While returning to Nidmanoor Village, when he reached Bankapuram cross roads by walk at about 6.00 p.m., a scooter bearing No.AP-24-D- 7335 driven by the first respondent in rash and negligent manner with high speed came behind the petitioner and dashed him, due to which, he fell down and sustained injuries and fractures. After dashing him, the first respondent fled away from the spot without stopping the scooter. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Miryalguda, where he was advised to shift to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for better treatment. But, his son shifted him to Mahaveer Hospital, Hyderabad, where he was treated as inpatient for a period of 45 days. He sustained fracture to his left leg, serious injuries to face, chest, both legs and waist and also multiple injuries all over the body. He was aged about 60 years at the time of accident and doing agriculture in his own lands. He was earning R.3000/- per month. He used to raise vegetables in his land and sell the same daily to the vegetable shop holders. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurance Company filed counter denying the petition averments as to the income, health condition, avocation etc. It denied the petitioner sustaining injuries and being treated as inpatient in Government Hospital. It further denied that the person, who drove the vehicle at the time of accident, was having valid subsisting driving licence to drive such vehicle. It was stated that the compensation claimed by the petitioner was highly excessive, arbitrary and out of all proportions. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the O.P. On the basis of the above averments, the following issues were settled for trial: “Issue No.1 :- Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the Motor Vehicle Accident. If so, whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the LML Scooter bearing No.AP-24-D- 7335? Issue No.2 :- Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation. If so, to what amount and by whom it should be paid? Issue No.3 :- To what relief?” On behalf of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.11. On behalf of the second respondent, though none was examined, Ex.B.1 policy was marked. After detailed consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal held that the first respondent drove the scooter in rash and negligent manner and he is responsible for the accident. Insofar as awarding of compensation, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no evidence on record with regard to the income of the petitioner. Since the petitioner claims to be an agriculturist, the Tribunal fixed his income at Rs.18,000/- per year and after deducting 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, it fixed his income at Rs.12,000/- per year. As the age of the petitioner was 60 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal applied the multiplier of “.97”, as per the judgment of the BHAGWAN DAS v. MOHD. ARIF[1], and since he suffered 50% permanent partial disability, it fixed the loss of earnings at Rs.6,000/- per annum. Apart from awarding the said amount, the Tribunal also awarded Rs.15,000/- towards fracture No.1; Rs.20,000/- towards injury No.2; Rs.1,000/- towards injury No.3; Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs.2,000/- towards transport and extra nourishment, as the petitioner took treatment in different hospitals. In all Rs.76,000/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in SARLA VERMA (SMT) V. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION[2] the correct multiplier, which should be applied for the person aged 60 years is “9”. The learned counsel for the second respondent resisted the said contention. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that applying of “9” multiplier in the instant case is just and reasonable and if the same is applied, the loss of income of the appellant comes to Rs.54,000/-. Insofar as the medical expenditure is concerned, though the appellant produced the medical bills for Rs.1,10,906/-, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.30,000/-. In the instant case, the petitioner was treated as inpatient in the hospital for more than 75 days and undergone two operations. Therefore, looking from any angle, awarding Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenditure is unreasonable. Hence, I consider it appropriate to fix Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenditure incurred by the appellant. Insofar as pain and suffering is concerned, it is unfortunate that the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2000/-. Admittedly, the appellant was in hospital for more than 75 days, undergone two operations, and the permanent partial disability was fixed at 50%. In view of the same, I am of the opinion that awarding of Rs.15,000/- on the count of pain and suffering would be reasonable in this case. Insofar as transport and extra nourishment is concerned, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.2,000/-. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to fix Rs.5,000/- on the count of transport and extra nourishment. Insofar as awarding of Rs.15,000/- towards fracture No.1 and Rs.21,000/- towards injury Ns.2 & 3, the same needs no interference. Thus, in all the appellant is entitled to Rs.1,60,000/-. The appellant is also entitled to interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of appeal till the date of realization on the enhanced amount. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 19.03.2010 va [1] 1987 (2) ALT 137 [2] (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 121