THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.172 of 2008 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 01.10.2007 in O.P.No.2986 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum (Mahila Courts), Hyderabad, the present appeal is filed urging that the Tribunal ought to have taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month instead of Rs.2,000/- and ought to have granted full amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation and the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.2 while granting compensation and the multiplier applied by the Tribunal is also not correct and thus urged for enhancement of compensation Per contra, the counsel for the insurance company urged that the Tribunal granted compensation by taking into consideration the gravity of the injuries and the disability and therefore the impugned order needs no interference. Now the point for consideration is ‘whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable’? PW.1 is the injured. PW.2 is the doctor who issued the discharge summary. According to PW.2 the petitioner sustained disability to an extent of 20% to 25% which is in the form of restriction of movements at hip and knee joints. Evidently, the injured was treated in Osmania General Hospital. Except the evidence of PW.2 any certificate of Medical Board is not filed to arrive at the percentage of the disability. However, the Tribunal considered the disability at 15% and granted compensation. As seen from the impugned order, PW.2 assessed the disability to have resulted in difficulty in sitting and walking for long distance. In the present case on hand, the nature of work done by the petitioner is labour work which would involve some amount of sitting, squatting and walking. The Tribunal correctly assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.3,600/- per annum and applied multiplier ‘17’ and granted compensation of Rs.61,200/-. The Tribunal also awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering which in my view is just and reasonable. But the Tribunal granted Rs.3,000/- towards follow up treatment and Rs.8,000/- towards loss of future amenities of life, which in my view can be enhanced. Hence, the additional sum of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- are granted under the above heads. With the above modification, the appeal is partly allowed granting additional compensation of Rs.5,000/-. No costs. _______________ K.S.APPA RAO, J 21st March, 2011 PNV