THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR M.A.C.M.A. No. 61 of 2009 Judgment: This appeal is directed against the orders dated 04.11.2008 Passed in O.P. No. 2108 of 2007 by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking enhancement of compensation. The petitioner herein is the claimant. He filed O.P. No.2108 of 2007, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. It is the case of the claimant that on 24.11.2006 at about 7.00 PM while he was driving the auto bearing No.AP 23 T 5658 from Patancheru to Rudraram at National Highway No.9, a private bus bearing No. AP 16 W 6388 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came and dashed against the auto, as a result of which the passengers in the auto and the claimant sustained injuries. The further case of the claimant is that he sustained grievous injuries and permanent disability. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- under various heads such as loss of earnings, transport charges, extra nourishment, damage to clothing, medical expenditure and future medical expenditure, attendant charges, pain and suffering, loss of amenities in life and future loss of earnings. The first respondent - owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the second respondent - Insurance Company contested the claim of the claimant and filed counter denying the averments of the claimant with regard to his age, income, sustaining of permanent disability and medical expenses etc. On behalf of the claimant, the claimant himself was examined as PW.1 and Dr. B. Rama Krishna was examined as PW.2 and Dr. B. Balraju was examined as PW.3 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company none were examined except marking the insurance policy as Ex.B1. The case sheet was marked as Ex.X1 through Court. The Tribunal, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, allowed the petition in part. The Tribunal observed that evidence of PW.2 - Medical Officer and Exs.A4 to A6 and A8 medical record reveals that the claimant sustained fractures of right femur and shaft and that he underwent surgery. Then the Tribunal simply observed that keeping in view the gravity of grievous injuries and pain and suffering it is reasonable to award an amount of Rs.75,000/- for each fracture and accordingly awarded Rs.1,50,000/- for two fractures. Then the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of earnings on the ground that the claimant is an Auto Driver. The Tribunal also awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Thus, in all the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,60,000/-. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submitted that as a result of the accident the claimant sustained fracture of right femur, fracture of neck of right femur, injury to right eye ball resulting in removal of eye ball. It is argued that the claimant had also sustained other grievous injuries to right hand, fracture of nasal bone, blunt injury in abdomen and other multiple injuries all over the body and that he was shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad, wherein he was treated as inpatient and operation was conducted to his right leg, flap coverage and external fixators were fixed, nails were inserted and debridement was done. It is also argued that later plastic surgery was conducted and skin drafting was done by taking the skin from the left thigh. It is also contended that after discharge from the hospital the claimant had taken periodical check-ups in the said hospital. It is also argued that the claimant was earning Rs.6,000/- per month and that the Tribunal has failed to consider the evidence on record. It is also his submission that the claimant had filed Ex.A3 MLC, Exs.A4 to A6 discharge cards, Exs.A7 and A9 disability certificates, Ex.A8 x-rays and Ex.A10 medical bills, which the Tribunal failed to consider. It is also submitted that the medical board issued disability certificate showing the disability to the extent of 60% due to the fracture to right femur and neck femur and that towards loss of right eye 60% disability was estimated. It is also argued that the Tribunal failed to consider that the claimant sustained permanent disability resulting in total loss of earnings. The lower Court also failed to consider the monthly income of the claimant and failed to apply the appropriate multiplier. It is also argued that nothing was awarded towards transport charges and towards loss of amenities in life and pain and suffering. It is also submitted that the settled legal position is that the lower Court ought to have followed the multiplier method. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the order of the Tribunal and submitted that there are no reasons to interfere with the same. The only point that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal ought to have followed the multiplier method. It is settled law that the Tribunal should follow the multiplier method for assessing the loss of earnings and for determining just and reasonable compensation. The medical board estimated the percentage of permanent physical impairment and loss of physical function to right lower limb at 60%. The loss of right eye ball is estimated at 30% permanent disability. The Tribunal failed to take into consideration the percentage of permanent disability sustained by the claimant and also failed to apply the multiplier. Similarly, the Tribunal failed to award compensation towards transportation charges and loss of amenities in life and for pain and suffering. It is the duty of the Tribunal to consider entire evidence and award just and reasonable compensation. In view of the same, I consider it just and reasonable to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Accordingly, the MACMA is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal with a direction to hear the arguments of both the parties and decide the matter afresh and award just and reasonable compensation to the claimant, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J. Date: 15.02.2011 Nsr