THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A C.M.A.No.1841 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,Hyderabad in O.P.No.1086 of 2000, dated 12.12.2002, originally, the appellant-injured claimant filed this appeal. It is stated that during the pendency of this appeal, the appellant-claimant died and his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 4.11.1999 at about 10.40 p.m. while the 1st appellant-deceased claimant was proceeding on his Scooter bearing No. AP 11-A-3259 along with his brother, Khaja Moinuddin, as pillion rider on the extreme left side of the road near Taj Iron Signal at Nampally, an ambassador car bearing No. AP1-J-2112 being driven by its driver at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side in a wrong direction and hit his scooter. As a result, himself and the pillion ride fell down and sustained grievous injuries and the scooter was completely damaged. Thereafter, the passersby admitted him in Osmania General Hospital. The 1st appellant has been taking treatment even at the time of filing of the above O.P. and as a result of the injuries sustained by him, he totally lost his earnings and was unable to do labour work. Hence, he filed the above O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.7,50,000/-. 3. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte and the 2nd respondent- insurance company filed a counter affidavit stating that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the 1st appellant only. It further stated that the injuries sustained by him have already been healed and there is no permanent disability sustained by the appellant, whatsoever. It further stated that the compensation claimed by the appellant is highly excessive. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues; 1. Whether the accident in question which resulted in injuries to the petitioner was due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent’s motor vehicle by its driver ? 2. whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? 5. On behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A16 were marked and Exs. X1 to X3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no witnesses were examined, but Ex.B1, insurance policy was marked with the consent of both the parties. 6. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the driver of the 1st respondent. With regard to the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal awarded a total amount of Rs. 6,21,158/- as compensation, which was rounded off to Rs. 6,21,000/-, together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation granted by the tribunal, the 1st appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. Mr.P. Ramakrisha Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even though the 1st appellant has been working as a labourer and was earning about Rs. 3,000/- per month, the Tribunal took his income as Rs.2,000/- per month and fixed the annual income at Rs.24,000/-. Learned counsel further submitted that when the disability sustained by the 1st appellant has been assessed at 65%, the tribunal has erred in fixing the annual loss at Rs. 14,400/-. He further stated that the multiplier of 13 was wrongly applied and the Tribunal ought to have applied the multiplier of 15. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the compensation be enhanced. It is seen from the record that in the accident which occurred on 4.11.1999, the appellant sustained the following injuries. 1) Closed fracture of both bones middle third and 2/3rd junction of right leg. 2) Fracture of let colles and lacerated injury on the right thigh. On a perusal of the medico legal record of the Osmania General Hospital, it is seen that initially closed reduction and interlocking nail fixation of right tibia was done on 10.1.1999 and plaster of paris was applied to the left colles fracture sustained by the 1st appellant and he was discharged on 19.11.1999. However, when infection is stated to have developed to his right leg, he took treatment in Karan Hospital for some time; in Osmania General Hospital for a period of thee months; in NIMS for seven days and later on as out patient in Apollo Hospital for nine months. Subsequently, for the same injuries he also underwent an operation in Bhagwandevi Hospital and is unable to walk without crutches. It is also seen from the record that the right leg of the appellant became short by 2 inches and he was unable to sit and squat and completely lost his earning capacity. Even according to P.W. 2, the doctor who treated him in Apollo Hospital, the 1st appellant underwent treatment for a period of ten months as an out patient for the injuries sustained by him and he is still unable to walk without the help of the crutches and he cannot do any hard work. He also issued Ex.A14 assessing the loss of disability sustained him at 60%. P.W.3 is another doctor of Bhagwandevi Hospital, who treated the 1st appellant for the injuries sustained by him. According to him, the 1st appellant was operated upon his right leg on 26.1.2001 and as he developed infection he was again admitted into hospital for treatment. When questioned about the present condition of the 1st appellant, P.W.3 stated that the fractures have united and his knee and ankle are arthrodesed (fused) and lost mobility of the knee and ankle joints and he therefore, cannot walk without the help of the cruthces and stated that the appellant cannot do any hard work. Further, during the course of trial, the Tribunal also examined the 1st appellant, who appeared before it and found that he was walking slowly with the help of crutches, that there is edima of the whole right leg with ugly scars; that his right leg has become shortened. Taking into consideration the age and the nature of the injuries sustained by him, it held that he had sustained disability to an extent of 65%. Therefore, it cannot be said that the disability as assessed by the Tribunal was excessive. Hence, no exception can be taken to that. However, coming to the question of assessment of loss of compensation on account of the permanent disability sustained by the 1st appellant is concerned, according to the 1st appellant, as on the date of the accident, he was working as a labourer and was getting about Rs. 3,000/- per month. However, he did not file any documentary evidence to show that he was getting Rs.3,000/- per month, in the absence of which, the Tribunal only took Rs.2,000/- as his monthly earnings and assessed the loss at Rs. 24,000/- annually. It is true that the 1st appellant did not file any material to show that he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. However, taking into consideration the age of the 1st appellant, I deem it appropriate to take the average monthly earnings of the appellant as Rs.2,500/-. Accordingly, the income of the 1st appellant is taken as Rs.2,500/- per month it comes to Rs. 30,000/- annually. Since in the instant case, the 1st appellant sustained permanent disability to an extent of 60%, the loss of income is estimated at Rs. 18,000/- annually. Now, coming to the question of multiplier, as per the judgment of the Apex Court in SARLA VERMA vs. DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION &OTHERS([1]), the appropriate multiplier applicable to the age of the appellant is 15. Therefore, by applying the multiplier of 15,the loss of income on account of the permanent disability is assessed at Rs.2,70,000/-. However, I am not inclined to interfere with the other amounts awarded by the Tribunal under different heads, such as medical expenses, pain and suffering, future medical expenses, loss of amenities, transportation, attendant charges and extra nourishment. Thus, in all, the appellants-claimants are entitled for an amount of Rs. 7,03,958/- as compensation instead of Rs. 6,21,158/- as awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 15th July, 2010 pnb [1] 2009(6) SCALE 129