THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4655 OF 2004 Dated: 18-11-2010 Between: Mohd. Obedur Rehman ... APPELLANT AND M/s. Aditya Enterprises, rep., by its Managing Partner Smt. P. Rajalaxmi, r/o. H.No.5-1-130, Gowliguda, Jambagh, Hyderabad (Owner of DCM Van bearing No. AP-9V-3262) and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CMA No. 4655 OF 2004 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the order dated 09-08-2004 in O.P No. 1478 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XVI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The claimant is the appellant. He filed the said O.P claiming a compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in an accident. He pleaded that he was working as a semi skilled employee in South Central Railways earning Rs.5,000/- per month and that on 10-05-2002 at about 1.30 pm he was going on his scooter bearing No. AP 9S 9110 slowly on the extreme left side of the road in the industrial area of Nacharam and when he reached Daiachi Karkaria Company, I.D.A, Nacharam, Hyderabad one DCM van bearing No. AP 9V 3262 driven by its driver with high speed, rashly and negligently came from its wrong side and dashed his scooter and due to the sudden impact, he fell from his scooter and received fracture of head, fracture of right temporal region, right orbital fracture with orbital injury and blindness of right eye, dislocation and fracture of right shoulder, plastic surgery of right orbital and cosmetic surgery was also suggested. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was taken to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad for treatment. 3. The first respondent and the second respondent – Insurance Company filed separate counter affidavits denying all the material allegations. 4. On the strength of the pleadings, the learned Judge framed necessary issues as to whether the appellant sustained injuries in the motor accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the DCM and whether the appellant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what relief he is entitled. On behalf of the appellant, PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-23 were marked and Ex.B-1 Insurance policy was marked on behalf of the respondent – Insurance Company. On the consideration of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned Judge answered the first and second issues in favour of the appellant and as regards the third issue, an amount of Rs.1,25,700/- was awarded towards compensation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the present appeal is filed by the appellant. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned Judge has awarded less compensation towards permanent disability without applying the multiplier method since the doctor who was examined as PW 2 deposed that the appellant sustained 30% disability. He further contended that the amount granted towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of amenities and damages to the scooter is very meagre and, therefore, the same needs to be enhanced. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents contend that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is quite reasonable and needs no interference. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the rash and negligent of the driver of the crime vehicle. Regarding the loss of earnings of the deceased, the Tribunal has taken his salary as Rs.5,000/- per month basing on Ex.A-8 salary certificate, but it has awarded only Rs.17,500/- towards the loss of earnings for three and half months. It is to be noticed that PW 2, the doctor testified in his evidence that the appellant has lost his right eye vision completely and the question of regaining the vision of right eye is not possible as eye ball is shrunken totally. The disability assessed due to loss of vision of right eye is 30% and he accordingly issued Ex.A-21 disability certificate. The learned Judge should have taken this into consideration while awarding compensation towards loss of earnings of the deceased. Under the circumstances, I feel that the amount awarded by the learned Judge towards loss of earnings needs enhancement and the disability sustained by the appellant should be taken as 30% as assessed by PW 2. 8. Insofar as the amount awarded towards medical expenses etc., is concerned, the learned Judge has granted an amount of Rs.22,205/- after deducting the amount of Rs.89,000/- which was sanctioned towards medical reimbursement and the same needs no modification. Apart from that, in my considered view, the appellant is also entitled to a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. 9. Thus, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,000/- per months towards loss of earnings which comes to Rs.60,000/- per annum, out of which 30% should be taken for the purpose of determining the compensation towards disability and thereby, it comes to Rs.18,000/- per annum. Since the age of the appellant was 36 years at the time of accident, the appropriate multiplier for the said age group, as per the decision of the apex Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation[1] is 15. Then, the compensation towards 30% disability comes to Rs.18,000X15=Rs.2,70,000/-. In addition, as stated above, the appellant is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,205/- towards medical expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering. Therefore, in all, the compensation comes to Rs.3,22,205/- which is rounded of to Rs.3,25,000/-. Thus, the compensation awarded by Tribunal is enhanced from Rs.1,25,700/- to Rs.3,25,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. 10. With the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 18-11-2010 ks [1] 2009 (6) SCALE 129